On 5/15/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Rob Church wrote:
On 12/05/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
And if that's the case, can we sue? Please?
Good luck with that.
The Foundation can't, because it doesn't own the copyright to the material. It's up to the copyright holder to enforce their licencing.
Could The Foundation sue /on behalf of/ those authors whose copyright has been violated?
INAL but my understanding is. Under US law they could if given permission to do so by the copyright holders (the situtation is compicated in the case of minors. The foundation would probably need their parents/gardians permissions).
At the very least it would certainly be possible for anyone who can enter into a contract to assign their copyright to the foundation.
How many people you need permission from depends if you consider Wikipedia to be a work of joint ownership or not (the other alternative is that each work is independently created as a derivative of the previous). I tend to believe it would be considered a joint work, as it makes the application of the GFDL a lot cleaner. Actually, I think the cleanest interpretation would be that Wikipedia is a collection of joint works, where in some cases those works consist of single articles and in other cases they stretch out more widely (due to copy/paste/etc). But I don't really buy into the interpretation that each version of each article is independently created under permission of the GFDL, in part because the GFDL simply isn't being followed.
Anyway, with a joint work all joint copyright owners (anyone who has contributed copyrighted material) has "an equal right to register and enforce the copyright". [http://www.techtransfer.fsu.edu/jointownership.html]
I don't know how chinese copyright law works and international copyright law tends to get very complex very fast.
Especially when the company in question is working directly with the government in question. Hence, "good luck with that".
Anthony
Personally, I would be unwilling to waive all my copyright's at once to the Foundation, but one or two edits I would.
On 5/15/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/15/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Rob Church wrote:
On 12/05/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
And if that's the case, can we sue? Please?
Good luck with that.
The Foundation can't, because it doesn't own the copyright to the material. It's up to the copyright holder to enforce their
licencing.
Could The Foundation sue /on behalf of/ those authors whose copyright has been violated?
INAL but my understanding is. Under US law they could if given permission to do so by the copyright holders (the situtation is compicated in the case of minors. The foundation would probably need their parents/gardians permissions).
At the very least it would certainly be possible for anyone who can enter into a contract to assign their copyright to the foundation.
How many people you need permission from depends if you consider Wikipedia to be a work of joint ownership or not (the other alternative is that each work is independently created as a derivative of the previous). I tend to believe it would be considered a joint work, as it makes the application of the GFDL a lot cleaner. Actually, I think the cleanest interpretation would be that Wikipedia is a collection of joint works, where in some cases those works consist of single articles and in other cases they stretch out more widely (due to copy/paste/etc). But I don't really buy into the interpretation that each version of each article is independently created under permission of the GFDL, in part because the GFDL simply isn't being followed.
Anyway, with a joint work all joint copyright owners (anyone who has contributed copyrighted material) has "an equal right to register and enforce the copyright". [http://www.techtransfer.fsu.edu/jointownership.html]
I don't know how chinese copyright law works and international copyright law tends to get very complex very fast.
Especially when the company in question is working directly with the government in question. Hence, "good luck with that".
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/15/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
Personally, I would be unwilling to waive all my copyright's at once to the Foundation, but one or two edits I would. -- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
I'm kinda curious; why would it bother you to assign all of your copyright but not some of it to the Foundation? I mean, you'll already essentially have given up hope of profitting of it by GFDL licensing it, and if you cross-license, you typically give up even more. And it's unlikely the Foundation will go evil, but even so, your original edits will still be safe?
What I'm trying to say is I don't really see any situation in which giving them or not to the Foundation matters to an editor, and I can see some situations in which giving it would help.
~maru
It seems to me that the most plausible place in which someone could use the GFDL in suing is if you re-used improperly re-used material.
For example: Company X downloads GFDL material from Wikipedia but does not correctly comply with the terms of the GFDL. Company Y knows Company X's material is GFDL and re-uses it themselves. Company X sues Company Y; Company Y pulls out the GFDL, proves the material was originally licensed under it, counter-sues Company X for having claimed they had copyright control over something they they did not.
Of course, Wikipedia/media gets nothing out of this.
Other than that, though, unless we are talking about a class-action suit (all Wikipedians who had worked on a given article), I don't know how you'd ever coordinate something like this...
FF
On 5/15/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/15/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Rob Church wrote:
On 12/05/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
And if that's the case, can we sue? Please?
Good luck with that.
The Foundation can't, because it doesn't own the copyright to the material. It's up to the copyright holder to enforce their licencing.
Could The Foundation sue /on behalf of/ those authors whose copyright has been violated?
INAL but my understanding is. Under US law they could if given permission to do so by the copyright holders (the situtation is compicated in the case of minors. The foundation would probably need their parents/gardians permissions).
At the very least it would certainly be possible for anyone who can enter into a contract to assign their copyright to the foundation.
How many people you need permission from depends if you consider Wikipedia to be a work of joint ownership or not (the other alternative is that each work is independently created as a derivative of the previous). I tend to believe it would be considered a joint work, as it makes the application of the GFDL a lot cleaner. Actually, I think the cleanest interpretation would be that Wikipedia is a collection of joint works, where in some cases those works consist of single articles and in other cases they stretch out more widely (due to copy/paste/etc). But I don't really buy into the interpretation that each version of each article is independently created under permission of the GFDL, in part because the GFDL simply isn't being followed.
Anyway, with a joint work all joint copyright owners (anyone who has contributed copyrighted material) has "an equal right to register and enforce the copyright". [http://www.techtransfer.fsu.edu/jointownership.html]
I don't know how chinese copyright law works and international copyright law tends to get very complex very fast.
Especially when the company in question is working directly with the government in question. Hence, "good luck with that".
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/15/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that the most plausible place in which someone could use the GFDL in suing is if you re-used improperly re-used material.
For example: Company X downloads GFDL material from Wikipedia but does not correctly comply with the terms of the GFDL. Company Y knows Company X's material is GFDL and re-uses it themselves. Company X sues Company Y; Company Y pulls out the GFDL, proves the material was originally licensed under it, counter-sues Company X for having claimed they had copyright control over something they they did not.
Is it illegal to claim you have copyright control over something you do not? I'm sure there are plently of laws against claiming you *wrote* something you didn't, but if you properly attribute the authors but tack on a false claim of copyright, I don't see how that can be illegal.
Anthony
On 5/15/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Is it illegal to claim you have copyright control over something you do not? I'm sure there are plently of laws against claiming you *wrote* something you didn't, but if you properly attribute the authors but tack on a false claim of copyright, I don't see how that can be illegal.
I'm not sure what you're meaning here - are you talking about falsely claiming that you own the copyright on the material, but attributing the authorship correctly?
-Matt
On 5/15/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Is it illegal to claim you have copyright control over something you do not? I'm sure there are plently of laws against claiming you *wrote* something you didn't, but if you properly attribute the authors but tack on a false claim of copyright, I don't see how that can be illegal.
I'm not sure what you're meaning here - are you talking about falsely claiming that you own the copyright on the material, but attributing the authorship correctly?
-Matt
I'm referring to the situation which I quoted directly above my question.
Anthony
G'day Matt,
On 5/15/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Is it illegal to claim you have copyright control over something you do not? I'm sure there are plently of laws against claiming you *wrote* something you didn't, but if you properly attribute the authors but tack on a false claim of copyright, I don't see how that can be illegal.
I'm not sure what you're meaning here - are you talking about falsely claiming that you own the copyright on the material, but attributing the authorship correctly?
If it's illegal to claim copyright over something to which you have no right, then I know a lot of museums, galleries and libraries that will soon find themselves in very hot water indeed.
Perhaps Anthony meant *knowingly false* claims (i.e. claims made in bad faith)?
On 5/15/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
If it's illegal to claim copyright over something to which you have no right, then I know a lot of museums, galleries and libraries that will soon find themselves in very hot water indeed.
Perhaps Anthony meant *knowingly false* claims (i.e. claims made in bad faith)?
It is indeed knowingly false claims. Which of course gives a lot of wiggle room.
FF
On 5/15/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Is it illegal to claim you have copyright control over something you do not? I'm sure there are plently of laws against claiming you *wrote* something you didn't, but if you properly attribute the authors but tack on a false claim of copyright, I don't see how that can be illegal.
As I understand it (again, I am not in any way a lawyer), the relevant parts of U.S. copyright law are:
(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. (d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500. (e) False Representation. - Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
From http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/5/sections/sectio...
FF
Thanks for the link. I was unaware of this particular law.
The law you point out seems to be written as a law against society, with the fine going to the government. Maybe the courts have also recognized it as a tort, though.
Also, as you mention, the standard (fraudulent intent) is quite high.
Anthony
On 5/15/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Is it illegal to claim you have copyright control over something you do not? I'm sure there are plently of laws against claiming you *wrote* something you didn't, but if you properly attribute the authors but tack on a false claim of copyright, I don't see how that can be illegal.
As I understand it (again, I am not in any way a lawyer), the relevant parts of U.S. copyright law are:
(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. (d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500. (e) False Representation. - Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
From http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/5/sections/sectio...
FF _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Thanks for the link. I was unaware of this particular law.
The law you point out seems to be written as a law against society, with the fine going to the government.
That pesky government. It's not like they exist for the good of society, collecting money to provide for the betterment of society. God save us from government, return us to serfdom.
On 5/17/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Thanks for the link. I was unaware of this particular law.
The law you point out seems to be written as a law against society, with the fine going to the government.
That pesky government. It's not like they exist for the good of society, collecting money to provide for the betterment of society. God save us from government, return us to serfdom.
Having a government doesn't mean you aren't a serf -- serfdom was state policy of Russia until 1861 (and, lest the Americans feel superior, forget not that chattel slavery was legal in many US states until 1865). And let's not even bring up the near-century of a mafia state under the Soviet Union! Governance isn't what keeps us from being slaves, and not all laws are sacred, and not all fines are useful. As I'm sure you'd agree.
FF
On 5/17/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Thanks for the link. I was unaware of this particular law.
The law you point out seems to be written as a law against society, with the fine going to the government.
That pesky government. It's not like they exist for the good of society, collecting money to provide for the betterment of society. God save us from government, return us to serfdom.
At least in feudal societies one doesn't have to worry about copyright.
~maru the oppression of the master as opposed to that of the lawy3r? Worth considering...
Fastfission wrote:
On 5/15/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Is it illegal to claim you have copyright control over something you do not? I'm sure there are plently of laws against claiming you *wrote* something you didn't, but if you properly attribute the authors but tack on a false claim of copyright, I don't see how that can be illegal.
As I understand it (again, I am not in any way a lawyer), the relevant parts of U.S. copyright law are:
(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. (d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500. (e) False Representation. - Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
"Fraudulent intent" is a key element to these provisions. That brings it all into criminal law where the standards of proof are much higher. A lot of people who put up these notices have the good faith belief that they are correct in doing so, and as I stated before they may still have copyright on the layout of the page, but nothing else.
Ec
The one area where I could see this law really coming into play would be something like a class action suit against some big photo company (i.e. Corbis) who was claiming to sell licenses for the copyrights of images that they did not own.
Corbis has a number of photos in their library which I know for a fact were made by the U.S. government as part of the Manhattan Project. I contacted them about this, and they said that even though it says you are buying a license to the copyright (and says copyright Corbis all over the page), that they really mean that it is only the copyright "on the scan itself" that they are claiming. I suggested that this seemed disingenuous, especially given the rather obvious reading of the application of Bridgeman v. Corel in this instance, and they cut off communication. Go figure. I think it is pretty criminal that they claim to be selling licenses to these photos when they own none of the intellectual property, and I find it very likely that in their vast collection they have sold people rights that they did not actually have, and threatened, by means of their pages and license information, to sue them for infringement if they used them outside the licenses, etc. In my mind this constitutes a form of fraud, but again, I'm not a lawyer.
But anyway, I'm getting a little off track here... :-)
FF
On 5/16/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
On 5/15/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Is it illegal to claim you have copyright control over something you do not? I'm sure there are plently of laws against claiming you *wrote* something you didn't, but if you properly attribute the authors but tack on a false claim of copyright, I don't see how that can be illegal.
As I understand it (again, I am not in any way a lawyer), the relevant parts of U.S. copyright law are:
(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. (d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500. (e) False Representation. - Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
"Fraudulent intent" is a key element to these provisions. That brings it all into criminal law where the standards of proof are much higher. A lot of people who put up these notices have the good faith belief that they are correct in doing so, and as I stated before they may still have copyright on the layout of the page, but nothing else.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/16/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
The one area where I could see this law really coming into play would be something like a class action suit against some big photo company (i.e. Corbis) who was claiming to sell licenses for the copyrights of images that they did not own.
I just wish it could be used against Google, who is putting those annoying "Copyright Google" watermarks all over other people's maps.
But I suppose they could claim they they own a copyright on the very watermarks which say copyright!
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/16/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
The one area where I could see this law really coming into play would be something like a class action suit against some big photo company (i.e. Corbis) who was claiming to sell licenses for the copyrights of images that they did not own.
I just wish it could be used against Google, who is putting those annoying "Copyright Google" watermarks all over other people's maps.
But I suppose they could claim they they own a copyright on the very watermarks which say copyright!
I would have great difficulty in accepting the notion that Google is running an altruistic organization.
When I went looking for an example from Google Print I came up with http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN11028847&id=Fkp93u9WfCgC&q=mex...
This book was published in 1911. Nevertheless, it gives only snippets, and the link that explains why talks about respecting copyright. The book can be bought through Froogle for $50.00 or more.
Does anyone wonder why I get cynica?
Ec
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/15/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that the most plausible place in which someone could use the GFDL in suing is if you re-used improperly re-used material.
For example: Company X downloads GFDL material from Wikipedia but does not correctly comply with the terms of the GFDL. Company Y knows Company X's material is GFDL and re-uses it themselves. Company X sues Company Y; Company Y pulls out the GFDL, proves the material was originally licensed under it, counter-sues Company X for having claimed they had copyright control over something they they did not.
Is it illegal to claim you have copyright control over something you do not? I'm sure there are plently of laws against claiming you *wrote* something you didn't, but if you properly attribute the authors but tack on a false claim of copyright, I don't see how that can be illegal.
IIRC US law provides a $2,500 fine for improper copyright claims, but I don't know if that clause has ever been used. Simply putting a copyright notice on a page doesn't mean very much. The material is only copyright to the extent that it is copyrightable, with or without the notice. It may very well be that the only thing copyrightable about the page is the layout, but it's up to the person wanting to use the material to figure it all out. Putting a notice when there is at least minimal copyrightable material would not be a false claim. I think that the people who add such notices know damn well that potential users will draw the false conclusion that everything on the page is copyright.
Ec
Fastfission wrote:
It seems to me that the most plausible place in which someone could use the GFDL in suing is if you re-used improperly re-used material.
For example: Company X downloads GFDL material from Wikipedia but does not correctly comply with the terms of the GFDL. Company Y knows Company X's material is GFDL and re-uses it themselves. Company X sues Company Y; Company Y pulls out the GFDL, proves the material was originally licensed under it, counter-sues Company X for having claimed they had copyright control over something they they did not.
he-he-he. That seems convoluted, but not improbable. Can we expect the average contributor to follow this when his rights are violated? What happens if this flares up in 50 years?
Ec