What is the prevailing etiquette on what to do with positive responses to requests for confirmation of licensing permission?
I just received a confirmation of permission requests for [[Brown Berets]], which had previously been listed as a possible copyvio. Presumably we need to keep a copy of this authorisation, but I'm reluctant to post it to the article's talk page because of privacy issues and general netiquette.
Any ideas? I've given myself the job of working through the [[WP:CP]] backlog, so I have a feeling I'm going to be doing a fair few permission requests over the next few days.
Best,
N.
I think as long as you remove the IP, the email address and other sensitive info, I doubt that anyone would object to the email being copied to the talk page would they?
Theresa
On 8/31/05, Nick Boalch n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote:
What is the prevailing etiquette on what to do with positive responses to requests for confirmation of licensing permission?
I just received a confirmation of permission requests for [[Brown Berets]], which had previously been listed as a possible copyvio. Presumably we need to keep a copy of this authorisation, but I'm reluctant to post it to the article's talk page because of privacy issues and general netiquette.
Any ideas? I've given myself the job of working through the [[WP:CP]] backlog, so I have a feeling I'm going to be doing a fair few permission requests over the next few days.
Best,
N.
-- Nicholas Boalch School of Modern Languages & Cultures Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3420 University of Durham Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421 New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Theresa Knott wrote:
What is the prevailing etiquette on what to do with positive responses to requests for confirmation of licensing permission?
I think as long as you remove the IP, the email address and other sensitive info, I doubt that anyone would object to the email being copied to the talk page would they?
No, I can't imagine they would -- but if this sensitive info is removed then there's essentially no difference between an emailed authorisation and a random anonymous editor on the talk page claiming to be the author. Is my word that the confirmation was real enough?
Cheers,
N.
For a tad more privacy, but something that remain available should anyone need it, what about putting in on a subpage, deleting the subpage, and then putting an "admins only" link (ie, any admin can access it, so the permission stays with the project even if you leave, but it is not openly available to the public.
Just a thought.
Ian
On 8/31/05, Nick Boalch n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote:
Theresa Knott wrote:
What is the prevailing etiquette on what to do with positive responses to requests for confirmation of licensing permission?
I think as long as you remove the IP, the email address and other sensitive info, I doubt that anyone would object to the email being copied to the talk page would they?
No, I can't imagine they would -- but if this sensitive info is removed then there's essentially no difference between an emailed authorisation and a random anonymous editor on the talk page claiming to be the author. Is my word that the confirmation was real enough?
Cheers,
N.
-- Nicholas Boalch School of Modern Languages & Cultures Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3420 University of Durham Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421 New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/31/05, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
For a tad more privacy, but something that remain available should anyone need it, what about putting in on a subpage, deleting the subpage, and then putting an "admins only" link (ie, any admin can access it, so the permission stays with the project even if you leave, but it is not openly available to the public.
That's a nice idea, but might not work long term since the deleted page archive is sometimes cleared out.
How about just copying the permission emails to the info-en at wikimedia.org address? That way it will be permanently archived and only viewable by people trusted to keep mails confidential (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/PR_department). The non-confidential parts should still be kept on the talk page though so everyone can see why the article was not deleted.
Angela.
Angela wrote:
How about just copying the permission emails to the info-en at wikimedia.org address? That way it will be permanently archived and only viewable by people trusted to keep mails confidential (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/PR_department). The non-confidential parts should still be kept on the talk page though so everyone can see why the article was not deleted.
Ah, that would make a certain about of sense. If I start forwarding permission emails to that address as of today, can you make sure I won't get yelled at please? :)
Cheers,
N.
Nick Boalch wrote:
How about just copying the permission emails to the info-en at wikimedia.org address? That way it will be permanently archived and only viewable by people trusted to keep mails confidential (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/PR_department). The non-confidential parts should still be kept on the talk page though so everyone can see why the article was not deleted.
Ah, that would make a certain about of sense. If I start forwarding permission emails to that address as of today, can you make sure I won't get yelled at please? :)
I've made [[Template:Confirmation]] to be added to the talk pages of articles where confirmation of permission has been obtained. Any suggested changes before I start using it 'live' (and publicise it to other admins processing [[WP:CP]])?
Cheers,
N.
On 8/31/05, Nick Boalch n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote:
Theresa Knott wrote:
What is the prevailing etiquette on what to do with positive responses to requests for confirmation of licensing permission?
I think as long as you remove the IP, the email address and other sensitive info, I doubt that anyone would object to the email being copied to the talk page would they?
No, I can't imagine they would -- but if this sensitive info is removed then there's essentially no difference between an emailed authorisation and a random anonymous editor on the talk page claiming to be the author. Is my word that the confirmation was real enough?
Cheers,
N.
If we don't already have one, we should establish a "permissions trustee" who would keep all such things confidential and in safe keeping, yet be able to verify that the permissions stated match the permissions actually on file.
When such permissions are explicited granted to the Wikimedia Foundation, they should be forwarded to an officer of the foundation in any case. I don't know enough about the Wikimedia Foundation to tell you who that is (or as indicated above, whether such person exists at this time).
On 31/08/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
When such permissions are explicited granted to the Wikimedia Foundation, they should be forwarded to an officer of the foundation in any case. I don't know enough about the Wikimedia Foundation to tell you who that is (or as indicated above, whether such person exists at this time).
I was just about to suggest that... have an email address at the foundation to serve as a drop-box for this sort of permissions mail, so we have a central record of it. This avoids there being a problem if the requesting editor vanishes/falls under a bus/storms off in a huff/loses all their mail, but preserves privacy in that unless there's a pressing need to confirm the license no-one needs to have access to it.
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 31/08/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
When such permissions are explicited granted to the Wikimedia Foundation, they should be forwarded to an officer of the foundation in any case. I don't know enough about the Wikimedia Foundation to tell you who that is (or as indicated above, whether such person exists at this time).
I was just about to suggest that... have an email address at the foundation to serve as a drop-box for this sort of permissions mail, so we have a central record of it. This avoids there being a problem if the requesting editor vanishes/falls under a bus/storms off in a huff/loses all their mail, but preserves privacy in that unless there's a pressing need to confirm the license no-one needs to have access to it.
The requesting editor is only doing a job; the net results of a request should remain independent of him. What happens to the copyright owner is far more relevant. If a copyright owner drops dead to-day his work will be protected until Dec. 31, 2075. His as yet unborn grandchildren won't even know about the licence on grandpa's writings. If they choose to dispute our use of his writings, proving that we have been licensed will be our burden. A simple note from a long gone editor will prove nothing. Even an e-mail record from the author may not be enough. We have no way of knowing or proving whether an electronic permission is in fact from a person who is authorized to give that licence.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Even an e-mail record from the author may not be enough. We have no way of knowing or proving whether an electronic permission is in fact from a person who is authorized to give that licence.
To be honest I suggest that we cross that bridge as and when we come to it -- I'm not sure what more we can reasonably be expected to do when it comes to obtaining confirmation of permission than get a clear statement by email.
Cheers,
N.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 31/08/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
When such permissions are explicited granted to the Wikimedia Foundation, they should be forwarded to an officer of the foundation in any case. I don't know enough about the Wikimedia Foundation to tell you who that is (or as indicated above, whether such person exists at this time).
I was just about to suggest that... have an email address at the foundation to serve as a drop-box for this sort of permissions mail, so we have a central record of it. This avoids there being a problem if the requesting editor vanishes/falls under a bus/storms off in a huff/loses all their mail, but preserves privacy in that unless there's a pressing need to confirm the license no-one needs to have access to it.
The requesting editor is only doing a job; the net results of a request should remain independent of him. What happens to the copyright owner is far more relevant. If a copyright owner drops dead to-day his work will be protected until Dec. 31, 2075. His as yet unborn grandchildren won't even know about the licence on grandpa's writings. If they choose to dispute our use of his writings, proving that we have been licensed will be our burden. A simple note from a long gone editor will prove nothing. Even an e-mail record from the author may not be enough. We have no way of knowing or proving whether an electronic permission is in fact from a person who is authorized to give that licence.
*cough* Digital signatures *cough*
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Michael Turley wrote:
On 8/31/05, Nick Boalch n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote:
Theresa Knott wrote:
What is the prevailing etiquette on what to do with positive responses to requests for confirmation of licensing permission?
I think as long as you remove the IP, the email address and other sensitive info, I doubt that anyone would object to the email being copied to the talk page would they?
No, I can't imagine they would -- but if this sensitive info is removed then there's essentially no difference between an emailed authorisation and a random anonymous editor on the talk page claiming to be the author. Is my word that the confirmation was real enough?
If we don't already have one, we should establish a "permissions trustee" who would keep all such things confidential and in safe keeping, yet be able to verify that the permissions stated match the permissions actually on file.
When such permissions are explicited granted to the Wikimedia Foundation, they should be forwarded to an officer of the foundation in any case. I don't know enough about the Wikimedia Foundation to tell you who that is (or as indicated above, whether such person exists at this time).
Having this information available to all admins would likely not be any more secure than having it available. Being sensitive to privacy issues has never been a criterion for becoming an admin. On the other hand leaving this with one person could leave him overwhelmed once things start working properly. Putting this through a committee of stewards and bureaucrats could make more practical sense.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Having this information available to all admins would likely not be any more secure than having it available. Being sensitive to privacy issues has never been a criterion for becoming an admin. On the other hand leaving this with one person could leave him overwhelmed once things start working properly. Putting this through a committee of stewards and bureaucrats could make more practical sense.
What we seem to be building towards is the idea of a central repository for confirmations of permission, managed by one or more responsible individuals at or on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. This sounds to me like the most sensible solution.
Cheers,
N.
I agree - I like that idea better than mine :)
Ian
On 8/31/05, Nick Boalch n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote:
What we seem to be building towards is the idea of a central repository for confirmations of permission, managed by one or more responsible individuals at or on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. This sounds to me like the most sensible solution.
On 8/8/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Michael Turley wrote:
If we don't already have one, we should establish a "permissions trustee" who would keep all such things confidential and in safe keeping, yet be
able
to verify that the permissions stated match the permissions actually on file.
When such permissions are explicited granted to the Wikimedia Foundation, they should be forwarded to an officer of the foundation in any case. I don't know enough about the Wikimedia Foundation to tell you who that is
(or
as indicated above, whether such person exists at this time).
Having this information available to all admins would likely not be any more secure than having it available. Being sensitive to privacy issues has never been a criterion for becoming an admin. On the other hand leaving this with one person could leave him overwhelmed once things start working properly. Putting this through a committee of stewards and bureaucrats could make more practical sense.
Ec
I agree with you completely regarding denying this role to the entire admin population in general.
While I respect the dedication and ability of Bureaucrats, Stewards, and various committees on WIkipedia, I specifically stated "Trustee" because that is a legally defined role with specific legal duties and responsibilities that go with the role. Unless we're extraordinarily lucky, I expect we'll have to pay this Trustee something to accept the legal responsibilities that being such a Trustee entitles.
Perhaps a better title is "Custodian of Records" as exemplified by the adult "entertainment" industry. (In the US, they're required to keep records to prove that all the participating actors and models are over 18 years at the time of production.) I don't know the details of these arrangements other than to say that the role is usually filled by contracting for an attorney to serve through a law firm, but suspect that the Custodian of Records is a specific type of Trustee defined by the law governing that industry.
Michael Turley wrote:
On 8/8/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Michael Turley wrote:
If we don't already have one, we should establish a "permissions trustee" who would keep all such things confidential and in safe keeping, yet be
able
to verify that the permissions stated match the permissions actually on file.
When such permissions are explicited granted to the Wikimedia Foundation, they should be forwarded to an officer of the foundation in any case. I don't know enough about the Wikimedia Foundation to tell you who that is
(or as indicated above, whether such person exists at this time).
Having this information available to all admins would likely not be any more secure than having it available. Being sensitive to privacy issues has never been a criterion for becoming an admin. On the other hand leaving this with one person could leave him overwhelmed once things start working properly. Putting this through a committee of stewards and bureaucrats could make more practical sense.
Ec
I agree with you completely regarding denying this role to the entire admin population in general.
While I respect the dedication and ability of Bureaucrats, Stewards, and various committees on WIkipedia, I specifically stated "Trustee" because that is a legally defined role with specific legal duties and responsibilities that go with the role. Unless we're extraordinarily lucky, I expect we'll have to pay this Trustee something to accept the legal responsibilities that being such a Trustee entitles.
Perhaps a better title is "Custodian of Records" as exemplified by the adult "entertainment" industry. (In the US, they're required to keep records to prove that all the participating actors and models are over 18 years at the time of production.) I don't know the details of these arrangements other than to say that the role is usually filled by contracting for an attorney to serve through a law firm, but suspect that the Custodian of Records is a specific type of Trustee defined by the law governing that industry.
What title we give to this person is of secondary importance. I also don't see why it can't be done by one or more volunteers.. That can be determined by the actual volume of work.
There is another major difference from what you describe for the adult film industry: the length of time for which the records will need to be kept. In their case the records may not be necessary once the prosecution limitation period has expired. We may need to track these permissions for 70 years or more.
Ec
On 8/8/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
There is another major difference from what you describe for the adult film industry: the length of time for which the records will need to be kept. In their case the records may not be necessary once the prosecution limitation period has expired. We may need to track these permissions for 70 years or more.
There is no limitation for prosecution for distribution of child pornography: if the distributor is still distributing the material, the proof of age must be in safe keeping available for inspection. Given the nature of content (once produced, cheap to reproduce and sell), it is entirely plausible that much adult material will require documentation on file <i>beyond</i> the copyright period. (In fact, having the documentation available in a vault somewhere may prove more powerful than copyright to keep this form of content and the profits it generates in the hands of the original distributor for long past the time when the content's copyright expires, since no one else could distribute it without having the proof on file!) Further, if there is profit in the future in "vintage" porn as there is today, the adult industry may have to keep records for literally hundreds of years, even if copyrights are never extended again.
I don't believe either has a lower standard of diligence, nor necessarily a shorter term to keep on file.
I think this is important enough that the Wikimedia Foundation would be well served by having a licensed attorney review this particular issue rather than rely upon the thoughtful consideration of interested people such as you and I.
Perhaps a layperson can serve a trustee of records, however, this person should be fully informed of the legal ramifications and liabilities they may expose themselves to in accepting this role.
For example, it is plausible that the trustee will have to occasionally issue the equivalent of "sufficiently reliable permission obtained for use" rulings regarding copyright works. If they were wrong, could the Wikimedia Foundation be found liable for damages resulting from the error? Could they be held personally liable for damages for the error? Would or could the Wikimedia foundation indemnify the trustee from harm resulting from their decisions? I don't think that these are the sort of questions a mailing list discussion can answer with sufficient authority.
However, I do think we need an official "copyright permissions record keeper" of some sort. Whether that is an individual or a group is less important at this time. But it should be someone fully qualified for and aware of the position's requirements and hazards. To me, this indicates a possible need for an attorney on retainer, but could see where (less cautious) others may choose to fill this role as a volunteer.
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 17:11 +0100, Nick Boalch wrote:
Theresa Knott wrote:
What is the prevailing etiquette on what to do with positive responses to requests for confirmation of licensing permission?
I think as long as you remove the IP, the email address and other sensitive info, I doubt that anyone would object to the email being copied to the talk page would they?
No, I can't imagine they would -- but if this sensitive info is removed then there's essentially no difference between an emailed authorisation and a random anonymous editor on the talk page claiming to be the author. Is my word that the confirmation was real enough?
Cheers,
N.
The way I've seen some editors handle this is promise to forward the e-mail to anyone who requests a copy. Of course, this doesn't really resolve the verifiability problem, because headers can be easily spoofed. One suggestion I have is to ask the copyright holder to create a PGP key set and sign the e-mail with his or her private key, as I and some others on this list do with all our e-mails. As long as his or her public key is available, which it always will be if placed on a public key server and downloaded by individuals, the e-mail can be easily verified. GnuPG, a PGP program, is freely available for all major operating systems, and many mail clients, such as Evolution and Mozilla Thunderbird, provide easy PGP integration.
--Christopher Larberg ([[w:en:User:Slowking Man]])
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Christopher Larberg wrote:
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 17:11 +0100, Nick Boalch wrote:
Theresa Knott wrote:
What is the prevailing etiquette on what to do with positive responses to requests for confirmation of licensing permission?
I think as long as you remove the IP, the email address and other sensitive info, I doubt that anyone would object to the email being copied to the talk page would they?
No, I can't imagine they would -- but if this sensitive info is removed then there's essentially no difference between an emailed authorisation and a random anonymous editor on the talk page claiming to be the author. Is my word that the confirmation was real enough?
Cheers,
N.
The way I've seen some editors handle this is promise to forward the e-mail to anyone who requests a copy. Of course, this doesn't really resolve the verifiability problem, because headers can be easily spoofed. One suggestion I have is to ask the copyright holder to create a PGP key set and sign the e-mail with his or her private key, as I and some others on this list do with all our e-mails. As long as his or her public key is available, which it always will be if placed on a public key server and downloaded by individuals, the e-mail can be easily verified. GnuPG, a PGP program, is freely available for all major operating systems, and many mail clients, such as Evolution and Mozilla Thunderbird, provide easy PGP integration.
Damn! You beat me to it! (Yes, I read my email in descending thread order, sometimes) :)
Oh, and both GPG and Thunderbird are Free Software.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Christopher Larberg wrote: [verifiability]
One suggestion I have is to ask the copyright holder to create a PGP key set and sign the e-mail with his or her private key, as I and some others on this list do with all our e-mails.
While that is the ultimate solution I'm unconvinced how many copyright holders, in addition to doing us the favour of licensing their work under the GFDL, would be prepared to learn how to use gpg just so they could do it. We're asking *them* a favour and the onus is on us to make it easy for them, I think.
Cheers,
N.