<<In a message dated 12/26/2008 11:43:52 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, carcharothwp@googlemail.com writes:
whether that refers to the images or the contents seems moot really.>>
Well David, in the case he pointed to, is stating that under US law (which is what governs Wikipedia), they don't even own a copyright to the images.
What I'm saying, is that even *if* they had a copyright to the images, they don't own a copyright to the text.
"Download or print" is the entire issue in my mind. If you want a copy of the *information* in the image, you don't have to download or print it, you can simply clip out the text and render it as plain text, over which, even with a photographic claim, they would have no copyright.
Either way, this entire issue is moot. We should wait until such time as JSTOR actually sues Wikipedia, or actually asserts a claim over a specific instance of plain text. We should, imho, refrain from making copies of their images, whether they actually enjoy a valid copyright claim or not.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc...)
Either way, this entire issue is moot. We should wait until such time as JSTOR actually sues Wikipedia, or actually asserts a claim over a specific instance of plain text.
Exactly. If a text is under copyright it can't be on Wikisource. If it's PD, it can be. And we have elaborate mechanisms in place to make sure that part of things works.
As to JSTOR and their contract law, that's between the uploader and JSTOR. If I promise them, in their terms of service, I won't copy the text of a PD document, but then I break my promise and copy it to Wikisource anyway, maybe _I_ did something wrong, but that's between me and JSTOR, and it's up to the courts and whatever Gods may be to sort it all out.
But the guiding principle is-- if it's PD it can go up, it's under copyright it comes down. What private contracts were made between the uploader and other parties-- that's got nothing to do with our project. We can't know what private side deals have been made, nor should we, nor can anyone expect us to.
-----
Now, if JSTOR, as part of some deal with the foundation, insists the foundation promise to refuse to HOST certain public domain texts, no matter who contributes them, then that WOULD be a dealbreaker I think. But they haven't asked, so we'll cross that bridge in the unlikely event that we come to it.
Alec
Alec Conroy wrote:
Either way, this entire issue is moot. We should wait until such time as JSTOR actually sues Wikipedia, or actually asserts a claim over a specific instance of plain text.
Exactly. If a text is under copyright it can't be on Wikisource. If it's PD, it can be. And we have elaborate mechanisms in place to make sure that part of things works.
As to JSTOR and their contract law, that's between the uploader and JSTOR. If I promise them, in their terms of service, I won't copy the text of a PD document, but then I break my promise and copy it to Wikisource anyway, maybe _I_ did something wrong, but that's between me and JSTOR, and it's up to the courts and whatever Gods may be to sort it all out.
But the guiding principle is-- if it's PD it can go up, it's under copyright it comes down. What private contracts were made between the uploader and other parties-- that's got nothing to do with our project. We can't know what private side deals have been made, nor should we, nor can anyone expect us to.
Now, if JSTOR, as part of some deal with the foundation, insists the foundation promise to refuse to HOST certain public domain texts, no matter who contributes them, then that WOULD be a dealbreaker I think. But they haven't asked, so we'll cross that bridge in the unlikely event that we come to it.
Basing their position on contract law is much shakier than anything that copyright law can throw at us. An effective contract between JSTOR and WMF would depend on WMF's ability to herd cats. That's a shaky prospect. A blanket prohibition of certain PD texts would need to apply to any copy of that text, whether we got them from JSTOR or from a contributor's private paper copy. Once they have been OCR'ed and Wikified can they prove that they were even taken from their database? The marks showing that source was from a particular copy in a certain library are of no interest to us.
Ec