Tomasz Wegrzanowsk wrote:
If it's copyrighted by anyone living in Europe, European laws apply.
All that matters to Wikimedia is what is legal to have on the server in the US. When you edit on a US-based server then the laws of the US dictate what is legal to have on that server. That doesn't mean you are immune to the laws of your own country, but as soon as you post something to the Wikimedia server then US law takes over.
However, it does look like written consent is required in the US to transfer ownership (an exclusive right) but it is not required to transfer other rights (so-called "non-exclusive rights"). This does seem to go counter to common contract law that which is rather permissive with informal agreements (but any good lawyer will still tell you to get things in writing)... Oh well.
But, the question is this; is one of those non-exclusive rights the right to re-license the work to third parties (such as giving Wikimedia the right to relicense the Anon's work under another copyleft license)? I couldn't find an answer to that.
We really need a lawyer's opinion here.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Daniel Mayer wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowsk wrote:
If it's copyrighted by anyone living in Europe, European laws apply.
All that matters to Wikimedia is what is legal to have on the server in the US. When you edit on a US-based server then the laws of the US dictate what is legal to have on that server. That doesn't mean you are immune to the laws of your own country, but as soon as you post something to the Wikimedia server then US law takes over.
Possibly not, as if the work is created by an EU citizen than EU copyright transfer rules apply, and by international convention the US will be required to respect the EU copyright. (i.e the transfer of copyright to a US citizen/group would need to be done under EU law for it to be valid in the US).
Imran
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 09:55:25PM -0700, Daniel Mayer wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowsk wrote:
If it's copyrighted by anyone living in Europe, European laws apply.
All that matters to Wikimedia is what is legal to have on the server in the US. When you edit on a US-based server then the laws of the US dictate what is legal to have on that server. That doesn't mean you are immune to the laws of your own country, but as soon as you post something to the Wikimedia server then US law takes over.
Location of the server is really a secondary issue here. It may be important for libel laws and stuff, but ownership over copyrights is obviously a global thing. You can't have copyright over something in one country, while somebody else has copyright over it in others (of course what are your rights here is country-specific)
Oh, and we want Wikipedia to be distributable in Europe too, don't you remember ?
And I don't really have to care about US laws at any point, only server owners has ;)
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
You can't have copyright over something in one country, while somebody else has copyright over it in others (of course what are your rights here is country-specific)
I don't think that this is literally true in all cases. It may be true in the general case, due to treaties or something like that.
Oh, and we want Wikipedia to be distributable in Europe too, don't you remember ?
Yes! That's very important, and so we need to follow the most conservative policies that we can, so long as they don't materially interfere with our encyclopedic and NPOV mission.
And I don't really have to care about US laws at any point, only server owners has ;)
Right! We each have to follow our own laws, and where they may conflict, we should be sensitive to both parties when we can.
--Jimbo
Op vr 01-08-2003, om 06:55 Daniel Mayer wrote:
We really need a lawyer's opinion here.
Yes. Since the number of wikis is growing, and Wikipedia is example to them all, we better get this right.
I suggest to send a mail with these questions to the Creative Commons people. Perhaps Eben Moglen is also willing to answser. After all, the FSF supports Wikipedia.
Wouter Vanden Hove www.opencursus.be www.open-education.org
--- Wouter Vanden Hove wouter.vanden.hove@pandora.be wrote:
Op vr 01-08-2003, om 06:55 Daniel Mayer wrote:
We really need a lawyer's opinion here.
Yes. Since the number of wikis is growing, and Wikipedia is example to them all, we better get this right.
I suggest to send a mail with these questions to the Creative Commons people. Perhaps Eben Moglen is also willing to answser. After all, the FSF supports Wikipedia.
Wouter Vanden Hove
Alex 756 is a lawyer. I'll ask him. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org