In a message dated 4/24/2009 4:34:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time, nawrich@gmail.com writes:
Plus, 350 probably way undercounts the number of copyviolations. There are probably many more than that in Wikipedia articles alone. My own feeling is that there should be a way to present wp articles on Knol that complies with copyright (by not changing the copyright status, reproducing the GFDL license notice, etc.), but I don't think any of the WP articles on Knol do that currently anyway.>> ----------------------------------
When there is no repurcussion, people will do what they will ;) Does the WF want to start sending cease-and-desist letters based on mirrors not displaying the license link? Or on mirrors not specifying "From the Wikipedia article..." with a link back or something? I don't know if they do, but I can't see what recourse they are going to have if they don't and then after some time suddently decide they will start doing it. There is a certain understanding in the law that if you do nothing about a situation that you know about for long enough, then you can't any longer.
As far as reproducing WP pages at Knol, there are several copyright choices you can choose, none of them are the GFDL. However I think you'd be in pretty safe waters if at the top of your Knol you stated something like this:
"This Knol, regardless of what the sidebar might say, is licensed under the GFDL. This statement supercededes any other statement about the licensing."
That makes it pretty clear and displays your exact intent. I doubt anyone is going to sue you over it.
Will Johnson
**************The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221421330x1201417418/aol?redi r=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&... rilAvgfooter424NO62)
2009/4/25 WJhonson@aol.com:
When there is no repurcussion, people will do what they will ;) Does the WF want to start sending cease-and-desist letters based on mirrors not displaying the license link?
The WMF doesn't own those articles, so I'm not sure they can really do anything about it. The actual authors need to complain.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/25 WJhonson@aol.com:
When there is no repurcussion, people will do what they will ;) Does the WF want to start sending cease-and-desist letters based on mirrors not displaying the license link?
The WMF doesn't own those articles, so I'm not sure they can really do anything about it. The actual authors need to complain.
You're both right. It's impossible to reconcile the editorial principle that you do not own the contents of an article that it is freely editable by anyone, and the legal right to be credited under copyright law. Whatever the eventual form of the licence, anyone who harbours the illusion that the WMF will step up to the plate to protect any individual's copyrights is being just plain fucking irresponsible in looking after his own rights.
There is good reason why copyrights developed within civil law instead of criminal law. It shouldn't be up to governments to prosecute private rights.
Ec
2009/4/25 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/25 WJhonson@aol.com:
When there is no repurcussion, people will do what they will ;) Does the WF want to start sending cease-and-desist letters based on mirrors not displaying the license link?
The WMF doesn't own those articles, so I'm not sure they can really do anything about it. The actual authors need to complain.
You're both right. It's impossible to reconcile the editorial principle that you do not own the contents of an article that it is freely editable by anyone, and the legal right to be credited under copyright law. Whatever the eventual form of the licence, anyone who harbours the illusion that the WMF will step up to the plate to protect any individual's copyrights is being just plain fucking irresponsible in looking after his own rights.
There is good reason why copyrights developed within civil law instead of criminal law. It shouldn't be up to governments to prosecute private rights.
What editorial principle that you do not own the contents of an article that it is freely editable by anyone? If you mean WP:OWN, that is not intended to be a statement about legal ownership.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/25 Ray Saintonge:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/25 WJhonson@aol.com:
When there is no repurcussion, people will do what they will ;) Does the WF want to start sending cease-and-desist letters based on mirrors not displaying the license link?
The WMF doesn't own those articles, so I'm not sure they can really do anything about it. The actual authors need to complain.
You're both right. It's impossible to reconcile the editorial principle that you do not own the contents of an article that it is freely editable by anyone, and the legal right to be credited under copyright law. Whatever the eventual form of the licence, anyone who harbours the illusion that the WMF will step up to the plate to protect any individual's copyrights is being just plain fucking irresponsible in looking after his own rights.
There is good reason why copyrights developed within civil law instead of criminal law. It shouldn't be up to governments to prosecute private rights.
What editorial principle that you do not own the contents of an article that it is freely editable by anyone? If you mean WP:OWN, that is not intended to be a statement about legal ownership.
Of course WP:OWN is not about legal ownership. The two approaches remain irreconcilable, and if I were a defendant in such a case I would not hesitate to raise WP:OWN in evidence, making the point that it nevertheless taints legal ownership. The burden of proof remains with the plaintiff. Given that others can edit the passage, the defendant may well argue that this implies that the plaintiff does not have the "exclusive right" required by statute. I think that most judges would prefer the simple argument.
Ec
2009/4/26 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Of course WP:OWN is not about legal ownership. The two approaches remain irreconcilable, and if I were a defendant in such a case I would not hesitate to raise WP:OWN in evidence, making the point that it nevertheless taints legal ownership. The burden of proof remains with the plaintiff. Given that others can edit the passage, the defendant may well argue that this implies that the plaintiff does not have the "exclusive right" required by statute. I think that most judges would prefer the simple argument.
The only thing WP:OWN has to do with ownership is the name, which is clearly metaphorical. I'm pretty sure the law distinguishes between ownership and control - you can give up some amount of control over something without giving up ownership of it. What statute is it that requires you to have exclusive rights to what?
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/26 Ray Saintonge:
Of course WP:OWN is not about legal ownership. The two approaches remain irreconcilable, and if I were a defendant in such a case I would not hesitate to raise WP:OWN in evidence, making the point that it nevertheless taints legal ownership. The burden of proof remains with the plaintiff. Given that others can edit the passage, the defendant may well argue that this implies that the plaintiff does not have the "exclusive right" required by statute. I think that most judges would prefer the simple argument.
The only thing WP:OWN has to do with ownership is the name, which is clearly metaphorical. I'm pretty sure the law distinguishes between ownership and control - you can give up some amount of control over something without giving up ownership of it. What statute is it that requires you to have exclusive rights to what?
17USC501 begins "Anyone who violates any of the *exclusive rights* of the copyright owner..." One could have fun with this in court. :-)
Ec
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
17USC501 begins "Anyone who violates any of the *exclusive rights* of the copyright owner..." One could have fun with this in court. :-)
Only if you consider it fun to be held in contempt for wasting the court's time with frivolous arguments. The "exclusive rights" are defined in Section 106.
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It's impossible to reconcile the editorial principle that you do not own the contents of an article that it is freely editable by anyone, and the legal right to be credited under copyright law.
I think you're right that there's at least some contradiction between the principle of "anyone can edit" and the principle of "authors should be credited". The right to integrity and the right to attribution may seem easily separable at first glance, but Wikipedia has, I believe, shown the limits of that separability.
On the other hand, I would think that a court would reconcile such contradiction in favor of upholding those rights reserved, rather than insisting that the explicit waiver of one right constituted an implicit waiver of the other. But maybe that's just wishful thinking.