On 5/15/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: licencing. 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] 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(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 5/15/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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] 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(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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.

On 5/15/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: 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, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> 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.

On 5/15/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: 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.

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.

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.

Anthony DiPierro wrote: 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.