Hello everyone,
Last week the UK's Intellectual Property Office issued new guidance on the use of orphan works https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens-access-to-91-million-orphan-works .
Wikimedia UK has just published its response to the new guidance. You can read the blog post here https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/11/response-to-the-new-ipo-orphan-works-licensing-scheme/ or view the copy as text below.
Thank you,
Stevie
*Response to the new IPO orphan works licensing scheme*
The UK’s Intellectual Property Office https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/intellectual-property-office last week announced the launch of a new orphan works licensing scheme https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens-access-to-91-million-orphan-works .
This allows individuals and institutions wishing to use a work of intellectual property where the rights holder cannot be identified to apply for a licence from the IPO. Licences are awarded where the IPO is satisfied that the applicant conducted a “diligent” search for the rights holder, and they have paid a licensing and administration fee.
This scheme brings forward little that is new. The rule allowing re-use after diligent search has been part of copyright law in the UK for many years. The primary purpose of the new licences seems to be to provide greater certainty to re-users that the searches they have undertaken are sufficiently extensive to guarantee legal protection should the copyright owner come forward.
Searches have to be exceptionally comprehensive before the Intellectual Property Office will certify them as ‘diligent’ and although there are new guidelines which will provide greater clarity for cultural institutions, the imposition of an official fee is concerning.
Even with this new scheme in place orphan works can still not be easily used by the Wikimedia projects and the volunteers who write and curate them.
A real solution to the orphan works problem must await a more radical approach that goes beyond both this and the existing EU Orphan Works Directive http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/orphan_works/index_en.htm.
We believe that this should be addressed as part of a more far-reaching review of copyright as a whole, at a national and European level. For example, a simple reduction in copyright terms would instantly make many works which are currently orphaned available for reuse.
You can see the recent Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU position paper on copyright reform – of which we are a signatory – here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Position_Paper_on_EU_Copyright.
Great work! Thanks Stevie and WMUK for keeping your eyes on the ball.
Dimi
2014-11-06 16:23 GMT+01:00 Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk:
Hello everyone,
Last week the UK's Intellectual Property Office issued new guidance on the use of orphan works https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens-access-to-91-million-orphan-works .
Wikimedia UK has just published its response to the new guidance. You can read the blog post here https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/11/response-to-the-new-ipo-orphan-works-licensing-scheme/ or view the copy as text below.
Thank you,
Stevie
*Response to the new IPO orphan works licensing scheme*
The UK’s Intellectual Property Office https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/intellectual-property-office last week announced the launch of a new orphan works licensing scheme https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens-access-to-91-million-orphan-works .
This allows individuals and institutions wishing to use a work of intellectual property where the rights holder cannot be identified to apply for a licence from the IPO. Licences are awarded where the IPO is satisfied that the applicant conducted a “diligent” search for the rights holder, and they have paid a licensing and administration fee.
This scheme brings forward little that is new. The rule allowing re-use after diligent search has been part of copyright law in the UK for many years. The primary purpose of the new licences seems to be to provide greater certainty to re-users that the searches they have undertaken are sufficiently extensive to guarantee legal protection should the copyright owner come forward.
Searches have to be exceptionally comprehensive before the Intellectual Property Office will certify them as ‘diligent’ and although there are new guidelines which will provide greater clarity for cultural institutions, the imposition of an official fee is concerning.
Even with this new scheme in place orphan works can still not be easily used by the Wikimedia projects and the volunteers who write and curate them.
A real solution to the orphan works problem must await a more radical approach that goes beyond both this and the existing EU Orphan Works Directive http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/orphan_works/index_en.htm.
We believe that this should be addressed as part of a more far-reaching review of copyright as a whole, at a national and European level. For example, a simple reduction in copyright terms would instantly make many works which are currently orphaned available for reuse.
You can see the recent Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU position paper on copyright reform – of which we are a signatory – here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Position_Paper_on_EU_Copyright .
--
Stevie Benton Head of External Relations Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Yes, thanks, Stevie!
I do wonder, on the orphan works front, what kind of reform would actually work for us given the standards in place on Commons and elsewhere. Even the most aggressive proposals I'm aware of end up looking a lot like American-style fair use, with a non-zero amount of uncertainty around the ability to use going forward. Are there specific proposals for reform in the EU that would be acceptable on Commons?[1]
Luis
[1] I think a fair amount of reform of Commons is probably desirable, but well outside the scope of this list, so for purposes of discussion lets take current levels of enforcement of the precautionary principle for granted.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Great work! Thanks Stevie and WMUK for keeping your eyes on the ball.
Dimi
2014-11-06 16:23 GMT+01:00 Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk:
Hello everyone,
Last week the UK's Intellectual Property Office issued new guidance on the use of orphan works https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens-access-to-91-million-orphan-works .
Wikimedia UK has just published its response to the new guidance. You can read the blog post here https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/11/response-to-the-new-ipo-orphan-works-licensing-scheme/ or view the copy as text below.
Thank you,
Stevie
*Response to the new IPO orphan works licensing scheme*
The UK’s Intellectual Property Office https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/intellectual-property-office last week announced the launch of a new orphan works licensing scheme https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens-access-to-91-million-orphan-works .
This allows individuals and institutions wishing to use a work of intellectual property where the rights holder cannot be identified to apply for a licence from the IPO. Licences are awarded where the IPO is satisfied that the applicant conducted a “diligent” search for the rights holder, and they have paid a licensing and administration fee.
This scheme brings forward little that is new. The rule allowing re-use after diligent search has been part of copyright law in the UK for many years. The primary purpose of the new licences seems to be to provide greater certainty to re-users that the searches they have undertaken are sufficiently extensive to guarantee legal protection should the copyright owner come forward.
Searches have to be exceptionally comprehensive before the Intellectual Property Office will certify them as ‘diligent’ and although there are new guidelines which will provide greater clarity for cultural institutions, the imposition of an official fee is concerning.
Even with this new scheme in place orphan works can still not be easily used by the Wikimedia projects and the volunteers who write and curate them.
A real solution to the orphan works problem must await a more radical approach that goes beyond both this and the existing EU Orphan Works Directive http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/orphan_works/index_en.htm .
We believe that this should be addressed as part of a more far-reaching review of copyright as a whole, at a national and European level. For example, a simple reduction in copyright terms would instantly make many works which are currently orphaned available for reuse.
You can see the recent Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU position paper on copyright reform – of which we are a signatory – here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Position_Paper_on_EU_Copyright .
--
Stevie Benton Head of External Relations Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
In my view what we need to push for are changes in the copyright term.
In the short term, we should push for "Rule of the Shorter Term" to be activated. This could free some U.S. copyrights in Europe, and some European copyrights in the United States -- and, most importantly, produce a single harmonised transatlantic standard.
There have been rumours of a Rule of the Shorter Term clause in TPP, to put pressure on Canada to lengthen its copyrights. And it is there in Berne, waiting to be activated. So this is something that could perhaps be put on the agenda without too many waves.
More fundamentally, clearance will continue to be a nightmare so long as "Life+X" remains the basic standard for copyright terms.
I think we should try to use every chance we can to try to get reform to "Life+X, but no longer than Publication+Y" on the agenda, which would create an easily verified hard cutoff akin to U.S. year 1923 rule.
I would suggest "Life+70, but no longer than Publication+95".
I am aware that that is far longer than most copyright radicals would seek.
But I think it has three advantages: (i) It's already the standard for corporately-made works in the United States, so would cause minimum change for those works.
(ii) For the next four years, everything published 95 years ago will already be in the public domain in the United States; so there would be no immediate step-change of works becoming public domain there, only a slow additional trickle after 2018.
(iii) It puts works into the public domain in time for the centenary of their creation to be celebrated, and guarantees the public that everything a century old is good to re-use.
Orphan works legislation doesn't grant something that Commons can use (or anyone, without the risk of being hit for licence payments down the track).
It's the copyright term that ultimately has to be the focus, if we're to end clearance hell. 95 years should be enough for anybody.
-- James.
On 06/11/2014 17:51, Luis Villa wrote:
Yes, thanks, Stevie!
I do wonder, on the orphan works front, what kind of reform would actually work for us given the standards in place on Commons and elsewhere. Even the most aggressive proposals I'm aware of end up looking a lot like American-style fair use, with a non-zero amount of uncertainty around the ability to use going forward. Are there specific proposals for reform in the EU that would be acceptable on Commons?[1]
Luis
[1] I think a fair amount of reform of Commons is probably desirable, but well outside the scope of this list, so for purposes of discussion lets take current levels of enforcement of the precautionary principle for granted.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Great work! Thanks Stevie and WMUK for keeping your eyes on the ball.
Dimi
2014-11-06 16:23 GMT+01:00 Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk:
Hello everyone,
Last week the UK's Intellectual Property Office issued new guidance on the use of orphan works https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens-access-to-91-million-orphan-works .
Wikimedia UK has just published its response to the new guidance. You can read the blog post here https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/11/response-to-the-new-ipo-orphan-works-licensing-scheme/ or view the copy as text below.
Thank you,
Stevie
*Response to the new IPO orphan works licensing scheme*
The UK’s Intellectual Property Office https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/intellectual-property-office last week announced the launch of a new orphan works licensing scheme https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens-access-to-91-million-orphan-works .
This allows individuals and institutions wishing to use a work of intellectual property where the rights holder cannot be identified to apply for a licence from the IPO. Licences are awarded where the IPO is satisfied that the applicant conducted a “diligent” search for the rights holder, and they have paid a licensing and administration fee.
This scheme brings forward little that is new. The rule allowing re-use after diligent search has been part of copyright law in the UK for many years. The primary purpose of the new licences seems to be to provide greater certainty to re-users that the searches they have undertaken are sufficiently extensive to guarantee legal protection should the copyright owner come forward.
Searches have to be exceptionally comprehensive before the Intellectual Property Office will certify them as ‘diligent’ and although there are new guidelines which will provide greater clarity for cultural institutions, the imposition of an official fee is concerning.
Even with this new scheme in place orphan works can still not be easily used by the Wikimedia projects and the volunteers who write and curate them.
A real solution to the orphan works problem must await a more radical approach that goes beyond both this and the existing EU Orphan Works Directive http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/orphan_works/index_en.htm .
We believe that this should be addressed as part of a more far-reaching review of copyright as a whole, at a national and European level. For example, a simple reduction in copyright terms would instantly make many works which are currently orphaned available for reuse.
You can see the recent Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU position paper on copyright reform – of which we are a signatory – here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Position_Paper_on_EU_Copyright .
--
Stevie Benton Head of External Relations Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Yes, should have said "fixes specific to orphan works". Obviously shorter (or at least not effectively eternal!) terms is a clear-cut priority that solves many kinds of problems.
Luis
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 10:50 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
In my view what we need to push for are changes in the copyright term.
In the short term, we should push for "Rule of the Shorter Term" to be activated. This could free some U.S. copyrights in Europe, and some European copyrights in the United States -- and, most importantly, produce a single harmonised transatlantic standard.
There have been rumours of a Rule of the Shorter Term clause in TPP, to put pressure on Canada to lengthen its copyrights. And it is there in Berne, waiting to be activated. So this is something that could perhaps be put on the agenda without too many waves.
More fundamentally, clearance will continue to be a nightmare so long as "Life+X" remains the basic standard for copyright terms.
I think we should try to use every chance we can to try to get reform to "Life+X, but no longer than Publication+Y" on the agenda, which would create an easily verified hard cutoff akin to U.S. year 1923 rule.
I would suggest "Life+70, but no longer than Publication+95".
I am aware that that is far longer than most copyright radicals would seek.
But I think it has three advantages: (i) It's already the standard for corporately-made works in the United States, so would cause minimum change for those works.
(ii) For the next four years, everything published 95 years ago will already be in the public domain in the United States; so there would be no immediate step-change of works becoming public domain there, only a slow additional trickle after 2018.
(iii) It puts works into the public domain in time for the centenary of their creation to be celebrated, and guarantees the public that everything a century old is good to re-use.
Orphan works legislation doesn't grant something that Commons can use (or anyone, without the risk of being hit for licence payments down the track).
It's the copyright term that ultimately has to be the focus, if we're to end clearance hell. 95 years should be enough for anybody.
-- James.
On 06/11/2014 17:51, Luis Villa wrote:
Yes, thanks, Stevie!
I do wonder, on the orphan works front, what kind of reform would actually work for us given the standards in place on Commons and elsewhere. Even the most aggressive proposals I'm aware of end up looking a lot like American-style fair use, with a non-zero amount of uncertainty around the ability to use going forward. Are there specific proposals for reform in the EU that would be acceptable on Commons?[1]
Luis
[1] I think a fair amount of reform of Commons is probably desirable, but well outside the scope of this list, so for purposes of discussion lets take current levels of enforcement of the precautionary principle for granted.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Great work! Thanks Stevie and WMUK for keeping your eyes on the ball.
Dimi
2014-11-06 16:23 GMT+01:00 Stevie Benton <stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk
:
Hello everyone,
Last week the UK's Intellectual Property Office issued new guidance on the use of orphan works https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens- access-to-91-million-orphan-works .
Wikimedia UK has just published its response to the new guidance. You can read the blog post here https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/11/response-to-the- new-ipo-orphan-works-licensing-scheme/ or view the copy as text below.
Thank you,
Stevie
*Response to the new IPO orphan works licensing scheme*
The UK’s Intellectual Property Office https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ intellectual-property-office last week announced the launch of a new orphan works licensing scheme https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens- access-to-91-million-orphan-works .
This allows individuals and institutions wishing to use a work of intellectual property where the rights holder cannot be identified to apply for a licence from the IPO. Licences are awarded where the IPO is satisfied that the applicant conducted a “diligent” search for the rights holder, and they have paid a licensing and administration fee.
This scheme brings forward little that is new. The rule allowing re-use after diligent search has been part of copyright law in the UK for many years. The primary purpose of the new licences seems to be to provide greater certainty to re-users that the searches they have undertaken are sufficiently extensive to guarantee legal protection should the copyright owner come forward.
Searches have to be exceptionally comprehensive before the Intellectual Property Office will certify them as ‘diligent’ and although there are new guidelines which will provide greater clarity for cultural institutions, the imposition of an official fee is concerning.
Even with this new scheme in place orphan works can still not be easily used by the Wikimedia projects and the volunteers who write and curate them.
A real solution to the orphan works problem must await a more radical approach that goes beyond both this and the existing EU Orphan Works Directive http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/orphan_works/ index_en.htm .
We believe that this should be addressed as part of a more far-reaching review of copyright as a whole, at a national and European level. For example, a simple reduction in copyright terms would instantly make many works which are currently orphaned available for reuse.
You can see the recent Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU position paper on copyright reform – of which we are a signatory – here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Position_Paper_ on_EU_Copyright .
--
Stevie Benton Head of External Relations Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
I had very much a similar thought like Luis, I cannot recall a satisfying proposal for orphan works, let alone one that would be acceptable to other parties too. It sounds great to say we should shorten terms, but of course this is the solution least likely to thrive.
The only thing I can imagine that would remotely 'help' us, is that one could ask official confirmation of some body that a work should be considered as published anonymously. In that case, publication+70 applies, which at the very least removes a lot of uncertainty. At least for the category where the author is unclear, this might legally make sense. Of course this would not go for works that are orphaned because there are too many heirs (copyright splintered over many people) or where their relatives are unclear, even though the author was.
But I would be very interested to hear more effective proposals for orphan works! I always find it slightly awkward to say something should be better, without specifying how it should be improved.
Lodewijk
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yes, should have said "fixes specific to orphan works". Obviously shorter (or at least not effectively eternal!) terms is a clear-cut priority that solves many kinds of problems.
Luis
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 10:50 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
In my view what we need to push for are changes in the copyright term.
In the short term, we should push for "Rule of the Shorter Term" to be activated. This could free some U.S. copyrights in Europe, and some European copyrights in the United States -- and, most importantly, produce a single harmonised transatlantic standard.
There have been rumours of a Rule of the Shorter Term clause in TPP, to put pressure on Canada to lengthen its copyrights. And it is there in Berne, waiting to be activated. So this is something that could perhaps be put on the agenda without too many waves.
More fundamentally, clearance will continue to be a nightmare so long as "Life+X" remains the basic standard for copyright terms.
I think we should try to use every chance we can to try to get reform to "Life+X, but no longer than Publication+Y" on the agenda, which would create an easily verified hard cutoff akin to U.S. year 1923 rule.
I would suggest "Life+70, but no longer than Publication+95".
I am aware that that is far longer than most copyright radicals would seek.
But I think it has three advantages: (i) It's already the standard for corporately-made works in the United States, so would cause minimum change for those works.
(ii) For the next four years, everything published 95 years ago will already be in the public domain in the United States; so there would be no immediate step-change of works becoming public domain there, only a slow additional trickle after 2018.
(iii) It puts works into the public domain in time for the centenary of their creation to be celebrated, and guarantees the public that everything a century old is good to re-use.
Orphan works legislation doesn't grant something that Commons can use (or anyone, without the risk of being hit for licence payments down the track).
It's the copyright term that ultimately has to be the focus, if we're to end clearance hell. 95 years should be enough for anybody.
-- James.
On 06/11/2014 17:51, Luis Villa wrote:
Yes, thanks, Stevie!
I do wonder, on the orphan works front, what kind of reform would actually work for us given the standards in place on Commons and elsewhere. Even the most aggressive proposals I'm aware of end up looking a lot like American-style fair use, with a non-zero amount of uncertainty around the ability to use going forward. Are there specific proposals for reform in the EU that would be acceptable on Commons?[1]
Luis
[1] I think a fair amount of reform of Commons is probably desirable, but well outside the scope of this list, so for purposes of discussion lets take current levels of enforcement of the precautionary principle for granted.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Great work! Thanks Stevie and WMUK for keeping your eyes on the ball.
Dimi
2014-11-06 16:23 GMT+01:00 Stevie Benton <stevie.benton@wikimedia.org. uk>:
Hello everyone,
Last week the UK's Intellectual Property Office issued new guidance on the use of orphan works https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens- access-to-91-million-orphan-works .
Wikimedia UK has just published its response to the new guidance. You can read the blog post here https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/11/response-to-the- new-ipo-orphan-works-licensing-scheme/ or view the copy as text below.
Thank you,
Stevie
*Response to the new IPO orphan works licensing scheme*
The UK’s Intellectual Property Office https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ intellectual-property-office last week announced the launch of a new orphan works licensing scheme https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens- access-to-91-million-orphan-works .
This allows individuals and institutions wishing to use a work of intellectual property where the rights holder cannot be identified to apply for a licence from the IPO. Licences are awarded where the IPO is satisfied that the applicant conducted a “diligent” search for the rights holder, and they have paid a licensing and administration fee.
This scheme brings forward little that is new. The rule allowing re-use after diligent search has been part of copyright law in the UK for many years. The primary purpose of the new licences seems to be to provide greater certainty to re-users that the searches they have undertaken are sufficiently extensive to guarantee legal protection should the copyright owner come forward.
Searches have to be exceptionally comprehensive before the Intellectual Property Office will certify them as ‘diligent’ and although there are new guidelines which will provide greater clarity for cultural institutions, the imposition of an official fee is concerning.
Even with this new scheme in place orphan works can still not be easily used by the Wikimedia projects and the volunteers who write and curate them.
A real solution to the orphan works problem must await a more radical approach that goes beyond both this and the existing EU Orphan Works Directive http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/orphan_works/ index_en.htm .
We believe that this should be addressed as part of a more far-reaching review of copyright as a whole, at a national and European level. For example, a simple reduction in copyright terms would instantly make many works which are currently orphaned available for reuse.
You can see the recent Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU position paper on copyright reform – of which we are a signatory – here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Position_Paper_ on_EU_Copyright .
--
Stevie Benton Head of External Relations Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
*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. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
HI all,
In my view the most effective global solution to the issue for the future would be an opt-in system for copyright. As for current works, a "use it or lose it" mechanism could also go a long way.
The reason we've focused on the other two core topics for now is that the Orphan Works Directive was passed in 2012, so it will take at least another 2-3 years to convince anyone that it should be reopened. What we should do for now is gather data and case studies.
As to its implementation, the Directive is... the best word I have is "half-baked". The current non-commercial clause in the Directive is just taking us out of the game before we can even start trying. Member States don't have a really good way of transposing it. I am sharing Wikimedia Deutschland's recommendations to their national ministry from back in 2012, as it is the most detailed statement by any Wikimedia embodiment on that topic, as far as I know. [1]
Dimi
2014-11-06 22:57 GMT+01:00 L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com:
I had very much a similar thought like Luis, I cannot recall a satisfying proposal for orphan works, let alone one that would be acceptable to other parties too. It sounds great to say we should shorten terms, but of course this is the solution least likely to thrive.
The only thing I can imagine that would remotely 'help' us, is that one could ask official confirmation of some body that a work should be considered as published anonymously. In that case, publication+70 applies, which at the very least removes a lot of uncertainty. At least for the category where the author is unclear, this might legally make sense. Of course this would not go for works that are orphaned because there are too many heirs (copyright splintered over many people) or where their relatives are unclear, even though the author was.
But I would be very interested to hear more effective proposals for orphan works! I always find it slightly awkward to say something should be better, without specifying how it should be improved.
Lodewijk
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yes, should have said "fixes specific to orphan works". Obviously shorter (or at least not effectively eternal!) terms is a clear-cut priority that solves many kinds of problems.
Luis
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 10:50 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
In my view what we need to push for are changes in the copyright term.
In the short term, we should push for "Rule of the Shorter Term" to be activated. This could free some U.S. copyrights in Europe, and some European copyrights in the United States -- and, most importantly, produce a single harmonised transatlantic standard.
There have been rumours of a Rule of the Shorter Term clause in TPP, to put pressure on Canada to lengthen its copyrights. And it is there in Berne, waiting to be activated. So this is something that could perhaps be put on the agenda without too many waves.
More fundamentally, clearance will continue to be a nightmare so long as "Life+X" remains the basic standard for copyright terms.
I think we should try to use every chance we can to try to get reform to "Life+X, but no longer than Publication+Y" on the agenda, which would create an easily verified hard cutoff akin to U.S. year 1923 rule.
I would suggest "Life+70, but no longer than Publication+95".
I am aware that that is far longer than most copyright radicals would seek.
But I think it has three advantages: (i) It's already the standard for corporately-made works in the United States, so would cause minimum change for those works.
(ii) For the next four years, everything published 95 years ago will already be in the public domain in the United States; so there would be no immediate step-change of works becoming public domain there, only a slow additional trickle after 2018.
(iii) It puts works into the public domain in time for the centenary of their creation to be celebrated, and guarantees the public that everything a century old is good to re-use.
Orphan works legislation doesn't grant something that Commons can use (or anyone, without the risk of being hit for licence payments down the track).
It's the copyright term that ultimately has to be the focus, if we're to end clearance hell. 95 years should be enough for anybody.
-- James.
On 06/11/2014 17:51, Luis Villa wrote:
Yes, thanks, Stevie!
I do wonder, on the orphan works front, what kind of reform would actually work for us given the standards in place on Commons and elsewhere. Even the most aggressive proposals I'm aware of end up looking a lot like American-style fair use, with a non-zero amount of uncertainty around the ability to use going forward. Are there specific proposals for reform in the EU that would be acceptable on Commons?[1]
Luis
[1] I think a fair amount of reform of Commons is probably desirable, but well outside the scope of this list, so for purposes of discussion lets take current levels of enforcement of the precautionary principle for granted.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Great work! Thanks Stevie and WMUK for keeping your eyes on the ball.
Dimi
2014-11-06 16:23 GMT+01:00 Stevie Benton <stevie.benton@wikimedia.org. uk>:
Hello everyone,
Last week the UK's Intellectual Property Office issued new guidance on the use of orphan works https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens- access-to-91-million-orphan-works .
Wikimedia UK has just published its response to the new guidance. You can read the blog post here https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/11/response-to-the- new-ipo-orphan-works-licensing-scheme/ or view the copy as text below.
Thank you,
Stevie
*Response to the new IPO orphan works licensing scheme*
The UK’s Intellectual Property Office https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ intellectual-property-office last week announced the launch of a new orphan works licensing scheme https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens- access-to-91-million-orphan-works .
This allows individuals and institutions wishing to use a work of intellectual property where the rights holder cannot be identified to apply for a licence from the IPO. Licences are awarded where the IPO is satisfied that the applicant conducted a “diligent” search for the rights holder, and they have paid a licensing and administration fee.
This scheme brings forward little that is new. The rule allowing re-use after diligent search has been part of copyright law in the UK for many years. The primary purpose of the new licences seems to be to provide greater certainty to re-users that the searches they have undertaken are sufficiently extensive to guarantee legal protection should the copyright owner come forward.
Searches have to be exceptionally comprehensive before the Intellectual Property Office will certify them as ‘diligent’ and although there are new guidelines which will provide greater clarity for cultural institutions, the imposition of an official fee is concerning.
Even with this new scheme in place orphan works can still not be easily used by the Wikimedia projects and the volunteers who write and curate them.
A real solution to the orphan works problem must await a more radical approach that goes beyond both this and the existing EU Orphan Works Directive http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/orphan_works/ index_en.htm .
We believe that this should be addressed as part of a more far-reaching review of copyright as a whole, at a national and European level. For example, a simple reduction in copyright terms would instantly make many works which are currently orphaned available for reuse.
You can see the recent Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU position paper on copyright reform – of which we are a signatory – here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Position_Paper_ on_EU_Copyright .
--
Stevie Benton Head of External Relations Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
*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. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
So by saying we should overhaul the whole copyright system, you basically mean to say there is no way whatsoever to make our lives easier working within the existing framework with, for example, only a new orphan works directive/law? Because reopening the Berne convention is a huge thing :) And if there is no easy way to fix this, is it then really fair to critisize governments that they come up with half baked solutions (assuming they rule out reopening Berne)?
Lodewijk
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
HI all,
In my view the most effective global solution to the issue for the future would be an opt-in system for copyright. As for current works, a "use it or lose it" mechanism could also go a long way.
The reason we've focused on the other two core topics for now is that the Orphan Works Directive was passed in 2012, so it will take at least another 2-3 years to convince anyone that it should be reopened. What we should do for now is gather data and case studies.
As to its implementation, the Directive is... the best word I have is "half-baked". The current non-commercial clause in the Directive is just taking us out of the game before we can even start trying. Member States don't have a really good way of transposing it. I am sharing Wikimedia Deutschland's recommendations to their national ministry from back in 2012, as it is the most detailed statement by any Wikimedia embodiment on that topic, as far as I know. [1]
Dimi
2014-11-06 22:57 GMT+01:00 L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com:
I had very much a similar thought like Luis, I cannot recall a satisfying
proposal for orphan works, let alone one that would be acceptable to other parties too. It sounds great to say we should shorten terms, but of course this is the solution least likely to thrive.
The only thing I can imagine that would remotely 'help' us, is that one could ask official confirmation of some body that a work should be considered as published anonymously. In that case, publication+70 applies, which at the very least removes a lot of uncertainty. At least for the category where the author is unclear, this might legally make sense. Of course this would not go for works that are orphaned because there are too many heirs (copyright splintered over many people) or where their relatives are unclear, even though the author was.
But I would be very interested to hear more effective proposals for orphan works! I always find it slightly awkward to say something should be better, without specifying how it should be improved.
Lodewijk
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yes, should have said "fixes specific to orphan works". Obviously shorter (or at least not effectively eternal!) terms is a clear-cut priority that solves many kinds of problems.
Luis
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 10:50 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
In my view what we need to push for are changes in the copyright term.
In the short term, we should push for "Rule of the Shorter Term" to be activated. This could free some U.S. copyrights in Europe, and some European copyrights in the United States -- and, most importantly, produce a single harmonised transatlantic standard.
There have been rumours of a Rule of the Shorter Term clause in TPP, to put pressure on Canada to lengthen its copyrights. And it is there in Berne, waiting to be activated. So this is something that could perhaps be put on the agenda without too many waves.
More fundamentally, clearance will continue to be a nightmare so long as "Life+X" remains the basic standard for copyright terms.
I think we should try to use every chance we can to try to get reform to "Life+X, but no longer than Publication+Y" on the agenda, which would create an easily verified hard cutoff akin to U.S. year 1923 rule.
I would suggest "Life+70, but no longer than Publication+95".
I am aware that that is far longer than most copyright radicals would seek.
But I think it has three advantages: (i) It's already the standard for corporately-made works in the United States, so would cause minimum change for those works.
(ii) For the next four years, everything published 95 years ago will already be in the public domain in the United States; so there would be no immediate step-change of works becoming public domain there, only a slow additional trickle after 2018.
(iii) It puts works into the public domain in time for the centenary of their creation to be celebrated, and guarantees the public that everything a century old is good to re-use.
Orphan works legislation doesn't grant something that Commons can use (or anyone, without the risk of being hit for licence payments down the track).
It's the copyright term that ultimately has to be the focus, if we're to end clearance hell. 95 years should be enough for anybody.
-- James.
On 06/11/2014 17:51, Luis Villa wrote:
Yes, thanks, Stevie!
I do wonder, on the orphan works front, what kind of reform would actually work for us given the standards in place on Commons and elsewhere. Even the most aggressive proposals I'm aware of end up looking a lot like American-style fair use, with a non-zero amount of uncertainty around the ability to use going forward. Are there specific proposals for reform in the EU that would be acceptable on Commons?[1]
Luis
[1] I think a fair amount of reform of Commons is probably desirable, but well outside the scope of this list, so for purposes of discussion lets take current levels of enforcement of the precautionary principle for granted.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Great work! Thanks Stevie and WMUK for keeping your eyes on the ball.
Dimi
2014-11-06 16:23 GMT+01:00 Stevie Benton < stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk>:
Hello everyone, > > Last week the UK's Intellectual Property Office issued new guidance > on > the use of orphan works > https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens- access-to-91-million-orphan-works> > . > > Wikimedia UK has just published its response to the new guidance. > You can read > the blog post here > https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/11/response-to-the- new-ipo-orphan-works-licensing-scheme/> > or view the copy as text below. > > Thank you, > > Stevie > > *Response to the new IPO orphan works licensing scheme* > > The UK’s Intellectual Property Office > https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ intellectual-property-office> last > week announced the launch of a new orphan works licensing scheme > https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens- access-to-91-million-orphan-works> > . > > This allows individuals and institutions wishing to use a work of > intellectual property where the rights holder cannot be identified > to apply > for a licence from the IPO. Licences are awarded where the IPO is > satisfied > that the applicant conducted a “diligent” search for the rights > holder, and > they have paid a licensing and administration fee. > > This scheme brings forward little that is new. The rule allowing > re-use > after diligent search has been part of copyright law in the UK for > many > years. The primary purpose of the new licences seems to be to provide > greater certainty to re-users that the searches they have undertaken > are > sufficiently extensive to guarantee legal protection should the > copyright > owner come forward. > > Searches have to be exceptionally comprehensive before the > Intellectual > Property Office will certify them as ‘diligent’ and although there > are new > guidelines which will provide greater clarity for cultural > institutions, > the imposition of an official fee is concerning. > > Even with this new scheme in place orphan works can still not be > easily > used by the Wikimedia projects and the volunteers who write and > curate them. > > A real solution to the orphan works problem must await a more radical > approach that goes beyond both this and the existing EU Orphan Works > Directive > http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/orphan_works/ index_en.htm> > . > > We believe that this should be addressed as part of a more > far-reaching > review of copyright as a whole, at a national and European level. For > example, a simple reduction in copyright terms would instantly make > many > works which are currently orphaned available for reuse. > > You can see the recent Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU position > paper on > copyright reform – of which we are a signatory – here > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Position_Paper_ on_EU_Copyright> > . > > -- > > Stevie Benton > Head of External Relations > Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 > @StevieBenton > > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England > and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. > Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, > London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global > Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia > Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). > > *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal > control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* > > > _______________________________________________ > Advocacy_Advisors mailing list > Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors > > >
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
*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. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
This could became an interesting chapter for us in the upcoming copyright reform talks with the new EU-commissioner for the Digital Agenda Günther Oettinger. Even if his recent statements don't raise to much hope for a progressive reform, which he wants to "speed up", the orphan works regulations are propably a field for a win on European level.
Best regards
Jens
2014-11-07 7:56 GMT+01:00 L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com:
So by saying we should overhaul the whole copyright system, you basically mean to say there is no way whatsoever to make our lives easier working within the existing framework with, for example, only a new orphan works directive/law? Because reopening the Berne convention is a huge thing :) And if there is no easy way to fix this, is it then really fair to critisize governments that they come up with half baked solutions (assuming they rule out reopening Berne)?
Lodewijk
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
HI all,
In my view the most effective global solution to the issue for the future would be an opt-in system for copyright. As for current works, a "use it or lose it" mechanism could also go a long way.
The reason we've focused on the other two core topics for now is that the Orphan Works Directive was passed in 2012, so it will take at least another 2-3 years to convince anyone that it should be reopened. What we should do for now is gather data and case studies.
As to its implementation, the Directive is... the best word I have is "half-baked". The current non-commercial clause in the Directive is just taking us out of the game before we can even start trying. Member States don't have a really good way of transposing it. I am sharing Wikimedia Deutschland's recommendations to their national ministry from back in 2012, as it is the most detailed statement by any Wikimedia embodiment on that topic, as far as I know. [1]
Dimi
2014-11-06 22:57 GMT+01:00 L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com:
I had very much a similar thought like Luis, I cannot recall a satisfying
proposal for orphan works, let alone one that would be acceptable to other parties too. It sounds great to say we should shorten terms, but of course this is the solution least likely to thrive.
The only thing I can imagine that would remotely 'help' us, is that one could ask official confirmation of some body that a work should be considered as published anonymously. In that case, publication+70 applies, which at the very least removes a lot of uncertainty. At least for the category where the author is unclear, this might legally make sense. Of course this would not go for works that are orphaned because there are too many heirs (copyright splintered over many people) or where their relatives are unclear, even though the author was.
But I would be very interested to hear more effective proposals for orphan works! I always find it slightly awkward to say something should be better, without specifying how it should be improved.
Lodewijk
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yes, should have said "fixes specific to orphan works". Obviously shorter (or at least not effectively eternal!) terms is a clear-cut priority that solves many kinds of problems.
Luis
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 10:50 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
In my view what we need to push for are changes in the copyright term.
In the short term, we should push for "Rule of the Shorter Term" to be activated. This could free some U.S. copyrights in Europe, and some European copyrights in the United States -- and, most importantly, produce a single harmonised transatlantic standard.
There have been rumours of a Rule of the Shorter Term clause in TPP, to put pressure on Canada to lengthen its copyrights. And it is there in Berne, waiting to be activated. So this is something that could perhaps be put on the agenda without too many waves.
More fundamentally, clearance will continue to be a nightmare so long as "Life+X" remains the basic standard for copyright terms.
I think we should try to use every chance we can to try to get reform to "Life+X, but no longer than Publication+Y" on the agenda, which would create an easily verified hard cutoff akin to U.S. year 1923 rule.
I would suggest "Life+70, but no longer than Publication+95".
I am aware that that is far longer than most copyright radicals would seek.
But I think it has three advantages: (i) It's already the standard for corporately-made works in the United States, so would cause minimum change for those works.
(ii) For the next four years, everything published 95 years ago will already be in the public domain in the United States; so there would be no immediate step-change of works becoming public domain there, only a slow additional trickle after 2018.
(iii) It puts works into the public domain in time for the centenary of their creation to be celebrated, and guarantees the public that everything a century old is good to re-use.
Orphan works legislation doesn't grant something that Commons can use (or anyone, without the risk of being hit for licence payments down the track).
It's the copyright term that ultimately has to be the focus, if we're to end clearance hell. 95 years should be enough for anybody.
-- James.
On 06/11/2014 17:51, Luis Villa wrote:
Yes, thanks, Stevie!
I do wonder, on the orphan works front, what kind of reform would actually work for us given the standards in place on Commons and elsewhere. Even the most aggressive proposals I'm aware of end up looking a lot like American-style fair use, with a non-zero amount of uncertainty around the ability to use going forward. Are there specific proposals for reform in the EU that would be acceptable on Commons?[1]
Luis
[1] I think a fair amount of reform of Commons is probably desirable, but well outside the scope of this list, so for purposes of discussion lets take current levels of enforcement of the precautionary principle for granted.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Great work! Thanks Stevie and WMUK for keeping your eyes on the ball. > > Dimi > > 2014-11-06 16:23 GMT+01:00 Stevie Benton < > stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk>: > > Hello everyone, >> >> Last week the UK's Intellectual Property Office issued new guidance >> on >> the use of orphan works >> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens- > access-to-91-million-orphan-works> >> . >> >> Wikimedia UK has just published its response to the new guidance. >> You can read >> the blog post here >> https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/11/response-to-the- > new-ipo-orphan-works-licensing-scheme/> >> or view the copy as text below. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Stevie >> >> *Response to the new IPO orphan works licensing scheme* >> >> The UK’s Intellectual Property Office >> https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ > intellectual-property-office> last >> week announced the launch of a new orphan works licensing scheme >> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens- > access-to-91-million-orphan-works> >> . >> >> This allows individuals and institutions wishing to use a work of >> intellectual property where the rights holder cannot be identified >> to apply >> for a licence from the IPO. Licences are awarded where the IPO is >> satisfied >> that the applicant conducted a “diligent” search for the rights >> holder, and >> they have paid a licensing and administration fee. >> >> This scheme brings forward little that is new. The rule allowing >> re-use >> after diligent search has been part of copyright law in the UK for >> many >> years. The primary purpose of the new licences seems to be to >> provide >> greater certainty to re-users that the searches they have >> undertaken are >> sufficiently extensive to guarantee legal protection should the >> copyright >> owner come forward. >> >> Searches have to be exceptionally comprehensive before the >> Intellectual >> Property Office will certify them as ‘diligent’ and although there >> are new >> guidelines which will provide greater clarity for cultural >> institutions, >> the imposition of an official fee is concerning. >> >> Even with this new scheme in place orphan works can still not be >> easily >> used by the Wikimedia projects and the volunteers who write and >> curate them. >> >> A real solution to the orphan works problem must await a more >> radical >> approach that goes beyond both this and the existing EU Orphan Works >> Directive >> http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/orphan_works/ > index_en.htm> >> . >> >> We believe that this should be addressed as part of a more >> far-reaching >> review of copyright as a whole, at a national and European level. >> For >> example, a simple reduction in copyright terms would instantly make >> many >> works which are currently orphaned available for reuse. >> >> You can see the recent Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU position >> paper on >> copyright reform – of which we are a signatory – here >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Position_Paper_ > on_EU_Copyright> >> . >> >> -- >> >> Stevie Benton >> Head of External Relations >> Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 >> @StevieBenton >> >> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in >> England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. >> Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, >> London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global >> Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia >> Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). >> >> *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal >> control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list >> Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors >> >> >>
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
*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. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
I'll admit, that's a fair point :)
I do think overhauling the current Directive would make our lives easier. Removing the non-commercial clause and limiting the financial risk (if the author turns up, a "fair compensation" is foreseen) are the two most obvious examples. The first can be done only be re-opening the Directive and the latter could also be done during the implementation by the Member States.
However, the first Directive in the pipeline is on copyright. They want to reform is as a priority, while orphan works is not even on the work plan for the next years. So it makes sense to keep up the pressure on copyright reform.
D
2014-11-07 7:56 GMT+01:00 L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com:
So by saying we should overhaul the whole copyright system, you basically mean to say there is no way whatsoever to make our lives easier working within the existing framework with, for example, only a new orphan works directive/law? Because reopening the Berne convention is a huge thing :) And if there is no easy way to fix this, is it then really fair to critisize governments that they come up with half baked solutions (assuming they rule out reopening Berne)?
Lodewijk
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
HI all,
In my view the most effective global solution to the issue for the future would be an opt-in system for copyright. As for current works, a "use it or lose it" mechanism could also go a long way.
The reason we've focused on the other two core topics for now is that the Orphan Works Directive was passed in 2012, so it will take at least another 2-3 years to convince anyone that it should be reopened. What we should do for now is gather data and case studies.
As to its implementation, the Directive is... the best word I have is "half-baked". The current non-commercial clause in the Directive is just taking us out of the game before we can even start trying. Member States don't have a really good way of transposing it. I am sharing Wikimedia Deutschland's recommendations to their national ministry from back in 2012, as it is the most detailed statement by any Wikimedia embodiment on that topic, as far as I know. [1]
Dimi
2014-11-06 22:57 GMT+01:00 L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com:
I had very much a similar thought like Luis, I cannot recall a satisfying
proposal for orphan works, let alone one that would be acceptable to other parties too. It sounds great to say we should shorten terms, but of course this is the solution least likely to thrive.
The only thing I can imagine that would remotely 'help' us, is that one could ask official confirmation of some body that a work should be considered as published anonymously. In that case, publication+70 applies, which at the very least removes a lot of uncertainty. At least for the category where the author is unclear, this might legally make sense. Of course this would not go for works that are orphaned because there are too many heirs (copyright splintered over many people) or where their relatives are unclear, even though the author was.
But I would be very interested to hear more effective proposals for orphan works! I always find it slightly awkward to say something should be better, without specifying how it should be improved.
Lodewijk
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yes, should have said "fixes specific to orphan works". Obviously shorter (or at least not effectively eternal!) terms is a clear-cut priority that solves many kinds of problems.
Luis
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 10:50 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
In my view what we need to push for are changes in the copyright term.
In the short term, we should push for "Rule of the Shorter Term" to be activated. This could free some U.S. copyrights in Europe, and some European copyrights in the United States -- and, most importantly, produce a single harmonised transatlantic standard.
There have been rumours of a Rule of the Shorter Term clause in TPP, to put pressure on Canada to lengthen its copyrights. And it is there in Berne, waiting to be activated. So this is something that could perhaps be put on the agenda without too many waves.
More fundamentally, clearance will continue to be a nightmare so long as "Life+X" remains the basic standard for copyright terms.
I think we should try to use every chance we can to try to get reform to "Life+X, but no longer than Publication+Y" on the agenda, which would create an easily verified hard cutoff akin to U.S. year 1923 rule.
I would suggest "Life+70, but no longer than Publication+95".
I am aware that that is far longer than most copyright radicals would seek.
But I think it has three advantages: (i) It's already the standard for corporately-made works in the United States, so would cause minimum change for those works.
(ii) For the next four years, everything published 95 years ago will already be in the public domain in the United States; so there would be no immediate step-change of works becoming public domain there, only a slow additional trickle after 2018.
(iii) It puts works into the public domain in time for the centenary of their creation to be celebrated, and guarantees the public that everything a century old is good to re-use.
Orphan works legislation doesn't grant something that Commons can use (or anyone, without the risk of being hit for licence payments down the track).
It's the copyright term that ultimately has to be the focus, if we're to end clearance hell. 95 years should be enough for anybody.
-- James.
On 06/11/2014 17:51, Luis Villa wrote:
Yes, thanks, Stevie!
I do wonder, on the orphan works front, what kind of reform would actually work for us given the standards in place on Commons and elsewhere. Even the most aggressive proposals I'm aware of end up looking a lot like American-style fair use, with a non-zero amount of uncertainty around the ability to use going forward. Are there specific proposals for reform in the EU that would be acceptable on Commons?[1]
Luis
[1] I think a fair amount of reform of Commons is probably desirable, but well outside the scope of this list, so for purposes of discussion lets take current levels of enforcement of the precautionary principle for granted.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Great work! Thanks Stevie and WMUK for keeping your eyes on the ball. > > Dimi > > 2014-11-06 16:23 GMT+01:00 Stevie Benton < > stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk>: > > Hello everyone, >> >> Last week the UK's Intellectual Property Office issued new guidance >> on >> the use of orphan works >> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens- > access-to-91-million-orphan-works> >> . >> >> Wikimedia UK has just published its response to the new guidance. >> You can read >> the blog post here >> https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/11/response-to-the- > new-ipo-orphan-works-licensing-scheme/> >> or view the copy as text below. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Stevie >> >> *Response to the new IPO orphan works licensing scheme* >> >> The UK’s Intellectual Property Office >> https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ > intellectual-property-office> last >> week announced the launch of a new orphan works licensing scheme >> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens- > access-to-91-million-orphan-works> >> . >> >> This allows individuals and institutions wishing to use a work of >> intellectual property where the rights holder cannot be identified >> to apply >> for a licence from the IPO. Licences are awarded where the IPO is >> satisfied >> that the applicant conducted a “diligent” search for the rights >> holder, and >> they have paid a licensing and administration fee. >> >> This scheme brings forward little that is new. The rule allowing >> re-use >> after diligent search has been part of copyright law in the UK for >> many >> years. The primary purpose of the new licences seems to be to >> provide >> greater certainty to re-users that the searches they have >> undertaken are >> sufficiently extensive to guarantee legal protection should the >> copyright >> owner come forward. >> >> Searches have to be exceptionally comprehensive before the >> Intellectual >> Property Office will certify them as ‘diligent’ and although there >> are new >> guidelines which will provide greater clarity for cultural >> institutions, >> the imposition of an official fee is concerning. >> >> Even with this new scheme in place orphan works can still not be >> easily >> used by the Wikimedia projects and the volunteers who write and >> curate them. >> >> A real solution to the orphan works problem must await a more >> radical >> approach that goes beyond both this and the existing EU Orphan Works >> Directive >> http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/orphan_works/ > index_en.htm> >> . >> >> We believe that this should be addressed as part of a more >> far-reaching >> review of copyright as a whole, at a national and European level. >> For >> example, a simple reduction in copyright terms would instantly make >> many >> works which are currently orphaned available for reuse. >> >> You can see the recent Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU position >> paper on >> copyright reform – of which we are a signatory – here >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Position_Paper_ > on_EU_Copyright> >> . >> >> -- >> >> Stevie Benton >> Head of External Relations >> Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 >> @StevieBenton >> >> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in >> England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. >> Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, >> London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global >> Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia >> Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). >> >> *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal >> control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list >> Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors >> >> >>
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
*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. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
When I consider this issue, I tend to come back to the fact that orphan works tend to be orphans for a reason - either the rights holder is no longer around, or nobody knows (or can easily find) the appropriate person or people. I think the idea of a diligent search is a good one, and is a good way to demonstrate that those who want to use orphan works are doing so responsibly and appropriately.
However, I don't like the idea of the cost involved in acquiring a license. A solution that could work - and I'm no copyright expert! - is an additional provision to the existing frameworks that allows for some kind of fair use of orphan works, after a diligent search and in a limited way, but is *revocable if the rights holder comes forward* within a period of, say, two years. After this two year period the orphan works would revert to the public domain. This may allow for limited use initially under an ND-NC licence which becomes much more open after that set period of time elapses.
Is that practical? I have no idea, but I am sure some folks on this list can tell me!
Stevie
On 7 November 2014 07:08, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll admit, that's a fair point :)
I do think overhauling the current Directive would make our lives easier. Removing the non-commercial clause and limiting the financial risk (if the author turns up, a "fair compensation" is foreseen) are the two most obvious examples. The first can be done only be re-opening the Directive and the latter could also be done during the implementation by the Member States.
However, the first Directive in the pipeline is on copyright. They want to reform is as a priority, while orphan works is not even on the work plan for the next years. So it makes sense to keep up the pressure on copyright reform.
D
2014-11-07 7:56 GMT+01:00 L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com:
So by saying we should overhaul the whole copyright system, you basically mean to say there is no way whatsoever to make our lives easier working within the existing framework with, for example, only a new orphan works directive/law? Because reopening the Berne convention is a huge thing :) And if there is no easy way to fix this, is it then really fair to critisize governments that they come up with half baked solutions (assuming they rule out reopening Berne)?
Lodewijk
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
HI all,
In my view the most effective global solution to the issue for the future would be an opt-in system for copyright. As for current works, a "use it or lose it" mechanism could also go a long way.
The reason we've focused on the other two core topics for now is that the Orphan Works Directive was passed in 2012, so it will take at least another 2-3 years to convince anyone that it should be reopened. What we should do for now is gather data and case studies.
As to its implementation, the Directive is... the best word I have is "half-baked". The current non-commercial clause in the Directive is just taking us out of the game before we can even start trying. Member States don't have a really good way of transposing it. I am sharing Wikimedia Deutschland's recommendations to their national ministry from back in 2012, as it is the most detailed statement by any Wikimedia embodiment on that topic, as far as I know. [1]
Dimi
2014-11-06 22:57 GMT+01:00 L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com:
I had very much a similar thought like Luis, I cannot recall a
satisfying proposal for orphan works, let alone one that would be acceptable to other parties too. It sounds great to say we should shorten terms, but of course this is the solution least likely to thrive.
The only thing I can imagine that would remotely 'help' us, is that one could ask official confirmation of some body that a work should be considered as published anonymously. In that case, publication+70 applies, which at the very least removes a lot of uncertainty. At least for the category where the author is unclear, this might legally make sense. Of course this would not go for works that are orphaned because there are too many heirs (copyright splintered over many people) or where their relatives are unclear, even though the author was.
But I would be very interested to hear more effective proposals for orphan works! I always find it slightly awkward to say something should be better, without specifying how it should be improved.
Lodewijk
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yes, should have said "fixes specific to orphan works". Obviously shorter (or at least not effectively eternal!) terms is a clear-cut priority that solves many kinds of problems.
Luis
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 10:50 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
In my view what we need to push for are changes in the copyright term.
In the short term, we should push for "Rule of the Shorter Term" to be activated. This could free some U.S. copyrights in Europe, and some European copyrights in the United States -- and, most importantly, produce a single harmonised transatlantic standard.
There have been rumours of a Rule of the Shorter Term clause in TPP, to put pressure on Canada to lengthen its copyrights. And it is there in Berne, waiting to be activated. So this is something that could perhaps be put on the agenda without too many waves.
More fundamentally, clearance will continue to be a nightmare so long as "Life+X" remains the basic standard for copyright terms.
I think we should try to use every chance we can to try to get reform to "Life+X, but no longer than Publication+Y" on the agenda, which would create an easily verified hard cutoff akin to U.S. year 1923 rule.
I would suggest "Life+70, but no longer than Publication+95".
I am aware that that is far longer than most copyright radicals would seek.
But I think it has three advantages: (i) It's already the standard for corporately-made works in the United States, so would cause minimum change for those works.
(ii) For the next four years, everything published 95 years ago will already be in the public domain in the United States; so there would be no immediate step-change of works becoming public domain there, only a slow additional trickle after 2018.
(iii) It puts works into the public domain in time for the centenary of their creation to be celebrated, and guarantees the public that everything a century old is good to re-use.
Orphan works legislation doesn't grant something that Commons can use (or anyone, without the risk of being hit for licence payments down the track).
It's the copyright term that ultimately has to be the focus, if we're to end clearance hell. 95 years should be enough for anybody.
-- James.
On 06/11/2014 17:51, Luis Villa wrote:
> Yes, thanks, Stevie! > > I do wonder, on the orphan works front, what kind of reform would > actually > work for us given the standards in place on Commons and elsewhere. > Even the > most aggressive proposals I'm aware of end up looking a lot like > American-style fair use, with a non-zero amount of uncertainty > around the > ability to use going forward. Are there specific proposals for > reform in > the EU that would be acceptable on Commons?[1] > > Luis > > [1] I think a fair amount of reform of Commons is probably > desirable, but > well outside the scope of this list, so for purposes of discussion > lets > take current levels of enforcement of the precautionary principle for > granted. > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < > dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote: > > Great work! Thanks Stevie and WMUK for keeping your eyes on the >> ball. >> >> Dimi >> >> 2014-11-06 16:23 GMT+01:00 Stevie Benton < >> stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk>: >> >> Hello everyone, >>> >>> Last week the UK's Intellectual Property Office issued new >>> guidance on >>> the use of orphan works >>> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens- >> access-to-91-million-orphan-works> >>> . >>> >>> Wikimedia UK has just published its response to the new guidance. >>> You can read >>> the blog post here >>> https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/11/response-to-the- >> new-ipo-orphan-works-licensing-scheme/> >>> or view the copy as text below. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Stevie >>> >>> *Response to the new IPO orphan works licensing scheme* >>> >>> The UK’s Intellectual Property Office >>> https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ >> intellectual-property-office> last >>> week announced the launch of a new orphan works licensing scheme >>> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens- >> access-to-91-million-orphan-works> >>> . >>> >>> This allows individuals and institutions wishing to use a work of >>> intellectual property where the rights holder cannot be identified >>> to apply >>> for a licence from the IPO. Licences are awarded where the IPO is >>> satisfied >>> that the applicant conducted a “diligent” search for the rights >>> holder, and >>> they have paid a licensing and administration fee. >>> >>> This scheme brings forward little that is new. The rule allowing >>> re-use >>> after diligent search has been part of copyright law in the UK for >>> many >>> years. The primary purpose of the new licences seems to be to >>> provide >>> greater certainty to re-users that the searches they have >>> undertaken are >>> sufficiently extensive to guarantee legal protection should the >>> copyright >>> owner come forward. >>> >>> Searches have to be exceptionally comprehensive before the >>> Intellectual >>> Property Office will certify them as ‘diligent’ and although there >>> are new >>> guidelines which will provide greater clarity for cultural >>> institutions, >>> the imposition of an official fee is concerning. >>> >>> Even with this new scheme in place orphan works can still not be >>> easily >>> used by the Wikimedia projects and the volunteers who write and >>> curate them. >>> >>> A real solution to the orphan works problem must await a more >>> radical >>> approach that goes beyond both this and the existing EU Orphan >>> Works >>> Directive >>> http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/orphan_works/ >> index_en.htm> >>> . >>> >>> We believe that this should be addressed as part of a more >>> far-reaching >>> review of copyright as a whole, at a national and European level. >>> For >>> example, a simple reduction in copyright terms would instantly >>> make many >>> works which are currently orphaned available for reuse. >>> >>> You can see the recent Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU position >>> paper on >>> copyright reform – of which we are a signatory – here >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Position_Paper_ >> on_EU_Copyright> >>> . >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Stevie Benton >>> Head of External Relations >>> Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 >>> @StevieBenton >>> >>> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in >>> England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. >>> Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, >>> London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global >>> Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia >>> Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). >>> >>> *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal >>> control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list >>> Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors >>> >>> >>>
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
*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. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org