On 7/13/05, Dan Grey <dangrey(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My point is - what has that bit of code got do with Wikipedia? Is that
> the bit "fair use" comes from?
>
Well, IANAL, just an Australian law student, but as far as I can tell,
17 USC 108 is linked because it is the part of US copyright law which
allows libraries or archives to make legitimate copies of a
copyrighted work.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000108----000…
I presume that this link is included to cover the possibility of a
copyright holder coming across an old revision of an article which
includes their copyrighted content. Basically it's saying "sorry, this
might have accidentally included your copyrighted work, but this is an
old revision, we have probably removed the content from the current
version, and just in case you try to sue, we believe we're covered by
this section." It's a sort of pre-emptive defence.
I'm not sure it's ever been tested whether WP would classify as a
"library", but WP would hopefully fall under 17 USC 108 (a) (1) - not
intending a commercial benefit, (a) (2) - WP is open to the public,
and (a) (3) the notice says "this work may be protected by copyright."
"Fair use" is a separate sort of pre-emptive copyright defence which
can be used by anyone (not just libraries and archives), which
essentially says "I know this work is copyright, but I believe that I
am reproducing this in a fair way."
Of course, IANAL, and I may be completely wrong, but that's how I read it.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
>>For non-profits the "benefit" can be furtherance of the stated mission,
>>which for many is educational. The benefit to a commercial photographer
>>might be getting their work and their name out for publicity value and
>>public exposure. A copyright holder agreeing in advance that a use is
>>"fair use" would make a subsequent attempt to litigate very difficult to
>>pursue. A note that a copyrighted image or text is used by permission
>>and considered "fair use" so long as it is for a non-commercial
>>educational purpose and properly credited should be an option on
>>Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>I think you are still unnecessarily conflating
>"fair use" with "licensing". Saying that a copyright
>holder agrees in advance that certain use is "fair
>use" is a rather convoluted way of licensing an image.
>You can simply say "I allow this image to be used for
>such and such purposes" without mentioning "fair use"
>at all.
>
>
Actually, a statement by the copyright holder that the use is considered
fair use does serve an important purpose, and is distinct from granting
a license or permission to use. The statement would probably prevent the
copyright holder, should that particular use ever be litigated, from
arguing a contrary position to the court. Effectively, the party
claiming fair use is relieved of the obligation to prove that the use is
indeed fair. See [[estoppel]]. The distinction is important because mere
licenses can often be revoked at any time if no consideration is involved.
This is why copyright owners sometimes approach people about the way
copyrighted content is being used, but still offer to give permission
for its use. Very often they know well enough that the situation would
qualify as fair use anyway, but phrase it as granting permission while
carefully insisting that "all their rights are reserved." Openly
agreeing that something is fair use is very rare, and PRA's willingness
to do so is a generous gesture.
--Michael Snow
I've proposed a change or addition to the RfC procedures on the talk
page of [[WP:RFC]]. I encourage people to have a look there, but the
upshot is that I'd like to see RfCs stop being adversarial/
prosecutorial mechanisms that are mostly a rehearsal for an arbcom
case, and instead be what they should have been all along -
opportunities for users to give constructive comments on each other's
conduct and editing.
My hope is that the RfC will fill a role more akin to mediation, in
which people can go "Oh, wow, a lot of people do wish I'd tone it
down a bit, even though they basically like what I contribute to
articles" or "Wow, a lot of people do think I'm a little brusque with
my administrative actions." Ideally, RfCs would be something people
would consider starting about themselves, asking for input and
council, and that the current petty rules-lawyering about whether an
RfC is "properly" certified would end.
I invite, well, comments. :)
-Snowspinner
Reading again and comparing with other sites, I see that the text is probably not there because of protection, but only revision. I find it even more curious. Why does the text seem to say the version has been revised "subsequently" of being possibly covered by copyright ?
I read and read and read it again... and sorry, I think it is very confusing and possibly misleading.
ant
Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi
While I was reading a protected article, I discovered at the bottom of the page the following disclaimer
This work may be protected by copyright. Please see 17 USC 108.
This version of the article has been subsequently revised.
Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains
factual inaccuracies, vandalism, or material not compatible with the GFDL.
----------------
I am *very* perplex. There are MANY reasons why an article can be protected on Wikipedia, and I would dare saying that having part of its content under copyright is probably the least probable reason for it to be restricted in edition. Protection is most of the time against vandalism or to cool down spirits. On the contrary, if an article contains factual inaccuracies or copyrighted material, it should be OPEN to editing so that it can be fixed as quickly as possible.
I perceive this disclaimer as possibly be meant to protect ourselves... but also as giving a very inacurate reason why we protect articles...
Second, WHY this reference to the US law code here?
Anthere
---------------------------------
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items.
---------------------------------
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items.
Hi,
Essentially, this is psuedo-legal gibberish. Many people who do not understand copyright and Fair Use have been taking relatively legitimate disclaimer statements from various websites and then rewriting them into this form. It is a sort of populist faux law. There are actually scholars who study the creation of fake legal writing. It is especially popular in the U.S. right-wing militia and Patriot movements, but some on the left have picked it up.
-Chip Berlet
________________________________
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org on behalf of Anthere
Sent: Tue 7/12/2005 9:08 AM
To: wikien-l(a)wikimedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] disclaimer at the bottom of pages
Hi
While I was reading a protected article, I discovered at the bottom of the page the following disclaimer
This work may be protected by copyright. Please see 17 USC 108.
This version of the article has been subsequently revised.
Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains
factual inaccuracies, vandalism, or material not compatible with the GFDL.
----------------
I am *very* perplex. There are MANY reasons why an article can be protected on Wikipedia, and I would dare saying that having part of its content under copyright is probably the least probable reason for it to be restricted in edition. Protection is most of the time against vandalism or to cool down spirits. On the contrary, if an article contains factual inaccuracies or copyrighted material, it should be OPEN to editing so that it can be fixed as quickly as possible.
I perceive this disclaimer as possibly be meant to protect ourselves... but also as giving a very inacurate reason why we protect articles...
Second, WHY this reference to the US law code here?
Anthere
---------------------------------
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Alphax said on July 5:
> Michael Turley wrote:
>> I'm always disappointed when I hear of people leaving, but I'd rather
>> have an unstable person leave because of a failed admin nomination than
>> promote an unstable person to adminship. At least this way, the
>> instability has only driven a single user away.
> Um, you seem to forget the case of RickK - an unstable admin who left
and deleted pages when they went...
This is a great inflated bubble of an argument.
Firstly we're told that RickK was unstable. No evidence is presented.
Secondly we're told that RickK "deleted pages" when he went.
Well actually all RickK did when he went was delete his user space
articles. As he was a member in good standing when he left, he was
surely entitled to do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Ri…
I object strongly to the characterisation of RickK as an unstable
administrator. He was one of the best we've had, he worked long and hard,
and he finally decided he'd had enough. I wish he would come back, but if
he's had enough then we should be thanking him for his long and faithful
service. Which I do gladly. Thank you RickK.
I do accept this apology - with the understnading that I am 99% at fault.
All I ever wanted was even the slightest hint of remorse. Thank you so
much, and sorry for the stupid ass arrogance of mine.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bishonen
To: "English Wikipedia"
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 8th Duke of Wellington image crisis
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:55:03 +0200
>
>
> On Mon Jul 11 15:30:23 UTC 2005, Jack Lynch (Sam Spade) wrote:
>
> bump
>
> Jack (Sam Spade)
>
> On 7/10/05, Jack Lynch wrote:
> > Please have a look @
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Image_use
> >
> > we have a rather difficult situation, spanning several pages and
a
> > number of policies, which I would like to see handled promptly
and
> > effectually.
> >
> > Jack (Sam Spade)
>
> There is no 8th Duke of Wellington image crisis. It was amicably
> resolved with mutual apologies on July 10, and I do not understand
> why Sam Spade keeps trying to re-awaken it. Some hours after
> Richard Harvey had posted a conciliatory message at [[Talk:Arthur
> Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington]], stating that he wasn't upset
> with John Kenney and would gladly buy him a pint, Sam posted an
> urgent-sounding crisis warning at
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
>
title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=18530575&oldid=185298
> 75
>
> And despite Fred Bauder's soothing reply, and John Kenney's apology
> slightly later on the 10th, Sam has now posted *and re-posted*
> his call for "handling" of the "difficult situation" to the
> mailing list. Please try to get over it, Sam. Everybody else has.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Bishonen
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
Dear all,
we are a research team at the University of Wuerzburg (Germany)
interested in the reasons and motives why participants are involved in
Wikipedia as author, administrator, or software developer. We are also
interested whether these reasons have changed over time.
We would like to invite you to answer our online survey, which is
available at:
<http://www.unipark.de/uc/wikipedia/>
In this international version of the survey, we included a number of
valuable ideas and suggestions we got from our survey of the German
Wikipedia project a few weeks ago. We hope this study will
* provide statistical data and insight about Wikipedia,
* encourage a helpful discussion between participants, and
* reveal best practices for Wikipedia and related Open Content
projects.
For more information and the current status of the study, please visit
our website:
<http://www.psychologie.uni-wuerzburg.de/ao/research/wikipedia.php?lang=en>
We would be very glad if
1. as many contributers as possible complete the questionnaire to
allow reliable results and
2. if you could spread the link above or this e-mail to people who
don't regularly read this list.
If you have questions or suggestions regarding the study or the
questionnaire, please don't hesitate to contact us. We're looking
forward to your participation -- and thanks a lot for your time and input!
Best wishes from Germany,
Joachim Schroer Guido Hertel Dana Jäger Elisabeth Pfeiffer
Nils Sauer
--
Joachim Schroer, Dipl.-Psych.
University of Wuerzburg
Department of Psychology II, Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Roentgenring 10
97070 Wuerzburg
Germany
Phone: +49 931 31 6062
Fax: +49 931 31 6063
http://www.psychologie.uni-wuerzburg.de/ao/staff/schroer.php