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(a)durham.ac.uk> 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. Just a thought. Ian On 8/31/05, Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch(a)durham.ac.uk> wrote:

On 31/08/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Andrew Gray wrote: 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: 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. -- 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/

On 8/8/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: 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 User:Unfocused

On 8/8/05, Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: 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. -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused

On 8/31/05, Guettarda &lt;guettarda(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Ray Saintonge wrote: *cough* Digital signatures *cough* - -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \

Christopher Larberg wrote: [verifiability] 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. -- 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/