Thomas Dalton writes:
>> This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term "moral
>> right." In copyright, "moral rights" refers to inalienable legal
>> rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that
>> does not recognize "moral rights," then you don't have them, by
>> definition.
>
> The idea behind moral rights is that they are rights that everyone has
> automatically and the law is just recognising that.
I understand what the *rhetoric* of moral rights is. But in the
absence of law establishing and protecting moral rights, you don't
have any.
> If you are in a
> jurisdiction that doesn't recognise moral rights then (from that POV)
> you still have moral rights, the state is just immoral and doesn't
> enforce them.
A more nuanced and accurate view of the term "moral rights" is that it
is a term of art relating to copyright and other rights in creative
works.
> There is a fundamental difference between a right
> granted by law and a pre-existing right recognised by law.
Is this difference based on anything in the physical world?
> That
> difference is irrelevant in a courtroom, which is probably why you
> dismiss it, but there is a difference.
It's true that religious beliefs don't have great force in Western
courtrooms. I dismiss this particular religious belief not because
it's irrelevant in a courtroom, however, but because there is no
evidence in the physical world that this difference exists.
Thomas, you may believe that the longstanding debate between natural
law and positivists has been resolved in favor of the former, but
there's no sign that this is true with regard to copyright. If what
you were saying were widely accepted, it would be odd that "moral
rights" obtain as to copyright/creative expression but not as to
things like property ownership and personal liberty.
--Mike
Thomas Dalton writes:
>> I understand what the *rhetoric* of moral rights is. But in the
>> absence of law establishing and protecting moral rights, you don't
>> have any.
>> [snip]
>
> There is a world outside the legal profession, Mike. Either learn
> that, or restrict the recipients of your emails to other lawyers. I,
> for one, don't care about your extremely narrow minded views.
I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential
concepts such as "moral rights" properly, I have a moral obligation to
point out where they are used mistakenly. This is not a question of
"the world outside the legal profession" (and, indeed, if you were a
member of the legal profession -- or a philosopher -- you wouldn't
make the mistake of supposing this). Philosophy of law is accessible
to people who aren't lawyers -- even you. But it's clear that the word
"moral rights" is being thrown around here by people who are only
casually familiar with the concept. When you have actually given some
study to jurisprudential philosophers (see, e.g., H.L.A. Hart and Lon
Fuller) and can offer some more sophisticated philosophical analysis
than you offer here, I will be able to take your pronunciamentos more
seriously.
Do you understand what the term "term of art" means?
By the way, most members of the legal profession are not students of
the philosophy of law. It is your misfortune that, in me, you have
come across someone who is. I'm not disqualified from pointing out
philosophical mistakes merely because I can hang out a shingle.
--Mike
Anthony writes:
> A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be.
This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term "moral
right." In copyright, "moral rights" refers to inalienable legal
rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that
does not recognize "moral rights," then you don't have them, by
definition.
> Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the
> right
> to attribution.
Okay, so why are you invoking rights that you don't have?
> Barring a license to use my content in that way, sure. Just like a
> film
> director has a basis to demand "the last solo credit card before the
> first
> scene of the picture".
Excuse me? Film directors don't have any legal right to such a
"credit card" (I assume you mean "credit"). They may negotiate for
such a credit through contract, but they don't have it in the absence
of a contract.
>> So you're saying your legal rights are defined by "common sense"?
>
> To some extent, sure. Not entirely by common sense, of course, but
> legal
> rights can't be understood without employing common sense.
They can't be understood without knowledge of the law, either.
--Mike
> Should we take no steps to protect people who have no wish to have their
photos published worldwide on a site owned by a charity devoted to
knowledge?
Or to put it another way, is an identifiable image of a person really free
if that person has not given a model release (irrespective of whether the
image is sexual)?
Virgin found out down under that this is not necessarily the case after
being sued for using a 'free' (CC) picture on Flickr[1] (also discussed
here[2] and here[3]).
Creative Commons simply excludes publicity rights from its scope[4], but
perhaps this is a good way for Commons (at least) to differentiate itself
from Flickr and other 'dumping grounds'. A good analogy would be having the
rights to a specific recording without the rights to the song itself.
I'm sure it's not the first time this subject has been raised, but now the
French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial publishing it's
probably worth [re]considering. Perhaps it is enough initially to tag images
lacking releases accordingly, with a view to having them released or
replaced? I note that this would also dispense with many concerns about
minors by requiring a minor release by parents or guardians[5].
Sam
1.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/virgin-sued-for-using-teens-photo/200…
2. http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7680
3. http://lessig.org/blog/2007/09/on_the_texas_suit_against_virg.html
4. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#When_are_publicity_rights_relevant.3F
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Michael Bimmler <michael.bimmler(a)wikimedia.ch>
> Date: 30 January 2009 16:38:29 GMT+01:00
> To: members(a)wikimedia.ch, wikimediach-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikimedia CH Members] General Assembly and guided tour /
> Mitgliederversammlung und Führung (Swiss National Library)
>
> Dear members, dear friends of Wikimedia CH
> liebe Mitglieder, liebe Freunde von Wikimedia CH
>
> It is with great pleasure that I invite you to the General Assembly
> 2009 of Wikimedia CH, to be held on the 28th of March, in Berne.
> Please find the details attached as a PDF.
>
> Ich lade Sie herzlich zur Generalversammlung 2009 von Wikimedia CH
> ein, welche am 28. März in Bern stattfinden wird. Die detaillierte M
> itteilung finden Sie als angehängte PDF-Datei.
>
> Une version française de cette invitation sera fournie dès que possi
> ble.
>
> Best regards,
> freundliche Grüsse,
>
> Michael Bimmler
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Bimmler
> President
>
> Wikimedia CH
> Association for the Advancement of Free Knowledge
> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> 8008 Zürich
> Switzerland
> +41 44 912 20 18 (home)
> +41 79 864 88 18 (mobile)
> michael.bimmler(a)wikimedia.ch
> http://www.wikimedia.ch
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members(a)wikimedia.ch
> http://lists.wikimedia.ch/listinfo/members
At
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Title_Page_…
we read:
"Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the
Invariant Section being the "Author and Publisher Information" and no
Front-Cover Texts and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is
included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License"."
This is clearly not compatible with the "official" policy at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
"If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to
the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover
texts, or back-cover texts)."
On the same page there is a self-contradiction to these clear words:
"Under Wikipedia's current copyright conditions, and with the current
facilities of the MediaWiki software, it is only possible to include
in Wikipedia external GFDL materials that contain invariant sections
or cover texts, if all of the following apply,
You are the copyright holder of these external GFDL materials (or: you
have the explicit, i.e. written, permission of the copyright holder to
do what follows);
The length and nature of these invariant sections and cover texts does
not exceed what can be placed in an edit summary;
You are satisfied that these invariant sections and cover texts are
not listed elsewhere than in the "page history" of the page where
these external materials are placed;
You are satisfied that further copies of Wikipedia content are
distributed under the standard GFDL application of "with no Invariant
Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts" (in
other words, for the copies derived from wikipedia, you agree that
these parts of the text contributed by you will no longer be
considered as "invariant sections" or "cover texts" in the GFDL
sense);
The original invariant sections and/or cover texts are contained in
the edit summary of the edit with which you introduce the thus GFDLed
materials in wikipedia (so, that if "permanent deletion" would be
applied to that edit, both the thus GFDLed material and its invariant
sections and cover texts are jointly deleted).
Seen the stringent conditions above, it is very desirable to replace
GFDL texts with invariant sections (or with cover texts) by original
content without invariant sections (or cover texts) whenever
possible."
I cannot see that the quoted copyright notice fits these conditions.
Klaus Graf
Gerard,
I find your response (which fails to address the issues I have raised)
abrasive bordering on offensive. I also note that this will not be the first
time *today* that someone has requested that you tone it down. What is clear
though is that we have a snowflake's chance in hell of convincing you there
is a problem, so I'm going to add you to a large (and growing) list of
trolls and ignore your 'contributions' from now on.
Presumably WMF has lawyer(s) somewhere. What would be the process of getting
them to take a look at this with a view to having the French chapter put
into place the requisite disclaimers?
Sam
Lennart: Illegal content results in individuals being pursued, arrested and
charged and snarky articles being written by old media, not outrageous
(albeit largely unjustified) claims for damages (and leverage via commercial
third parties):
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/01/statutory-damages-not-high-…
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> Hoi,
> What WMF server allows anonymous uploads of images ? Do you know if this
> makes any difference any way ? Who do you think you get an invoice from? Not
> the WMF not its chapters. So please THINK
>
> Why bother us with such tripe that is irrelevant to the thread anyway ?
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston <samj(a)samj.net>
>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston <samj(a)samj.net>:
>> >
>> > >> Material in the public domain or under a fully free licence does not
>> > >> require any kind of fair use consideration.
>> > >
>> > > I'm not talking about genuinely free material, I'm talking about
>> > protected
>> > > (copyrighted/trademarked) material being uploaded by others - for
>> example
>> > a
>> > > periodic table of elements or medical charts which would normally be
>> > subject
>> > > to deletion (except that they are currently immediately available for
>> > > sale!).
>> >
>> > I'm a little confused - surely we would delete this stuff whether or
>> > not there's a "buy a print now" clickthrough button? I can't see
>> > anyone arguing to keep it because they want to run off a poster...
>> >
>> > (and to a degree this is rendered moot by that helpful "lowest useful
>> > resolution" requirement of the unfree material rules)
>> >
>>
>> 1. Upload high-resolution copyrighted image littered with trademarks as
>> anonymous user.
>> 2. Immediately order poster of said image.
>> 3. File against WMF, its chapter(s) and the printer for good measure
>> claiming [RI|MP]AA sized damages for copyright and trademark infringement,
>> submitting said poster(s) and invoice(s) as evidence.
>> 4. ???
>> 5. Profit!
>>
>> Note that these steps need not necessarily be completed by the same
>> parties.
>> I'm not sure that the courts would have much leeway here (as they might
>> were
>> the image not used commercially as was the case before this function was
>> launched).
>>
>> Sam
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dear all,
I am pleased to announce (a day late) the members of the jury for the
2010 Wikimania bids:
Voting members of the jury
* Ting Chen <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Wing> (Wikimedia
Foundation Board - community elected member)
* Delphine Ménard <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Notafish>
(Wikimania 2005, 2006 & 2008 organisation, chapters)
* Samuel Klein <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sj> (Wikimania
2005 & 2006 organisation)
* Austin Hair <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Austin>
(Wikimania 2005 & 2006 organisation, chapters)
* Mohammed Ibrahim <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mido>
(Wikimania 2008 organisation)
* Frank Schulenburg
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Frank_Schulenburg>
(Wikimedia Foundation Head of Public Outreach)
* Teemu Leinonen
<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board#Teemu_Leinonen>
(Advisory Board)
Phoebe Ayers will be moderating the jury, and I will serve as a backup
moderator. This information is detailed in
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2010/Jury>.
This should also serve as formal recognition that the bidding process
is ready to begin once the pages are cleared of "potential bids",
allowing those that have worked hard on their bids to place them formally.
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFJgeXvyQg4JSymDYkRAphyAKDnPuVGxF30F0zrFcI7wbJdJP/3XQCg4QMQ
UXOiGLYsoVlS+gAM+FeYqdY=
=xlIg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
If you haven't seen it yet, Ubuntu is running an interesting
brainstorming software called IdeaTorrent to think collectively about
common problems and solutions:
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/
The software:
http://www.ideatorrent.org/
I wonder - would people consider it useful to set up something like
brainstorm.wikimedia.org using this software, or would it be too
duplicative of BugZilla and listservs? The benefit of IdeaTorrent is
that it's very straightforward for non-technical users to contribute
ideas and solutions. And, of course, it could be used for
non-technical problems as well.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com" <jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:55:12 +0100
Subject: Fwd: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia IdeaTorrent?
To: foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
I posted my idea here:
http://rdfintrospector2.blogspot.com/2009/01/mediawiki-voting-system.html
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia IdeaTorrent?
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Platonides > Seems like bugzilla,
but with a separated "solutions" section, where
> proposed solutions can get votes.
> I don't think it should be added, but moving bugzilla to brainstorm
> could be considered.
Dear Friends,
it is a great honor for me to be on this mailing list,
and I am learning alot just by listening and watching.
Now, I would like to make a simple suggestion :
Lets take this nice technology, extract the essence and
make the wikimedia better :
Look at change.org, the facebook "causes" and other things like
hubdub.com. They allow people to vote with their feet.
How about a simple voting technology for the mediawiki?
Of course with limitations to make those votes more valuable:
With the ability to make comments on those votes,
even put "credits" or "money" on them like bets (see hubdub.com) so
that they are valuable.
The ability to suspend them after a certain time so that they money
would be freed up.
The ability to give your vote to representative (mandates).
The ability to get votes by earning credits (good editiing)
If you had that, then you would
be able to collect reasoned and weighted judgements and then use that
to poll people for all types of issue. It would also bring more
quality and a new form of interaction.
People love to see their name with a number on it!
People could also vote on changes, vote on other people and it would
give the wikimedia a whole new layer of interaction.
thanks for listening,
mike
James Michael DuPont
Organiser: Software Freedom Conference 2009
Aug 28, Sept 6, Sept 23 Prishtina Kosovo.
http://groups.google.com/group/free-software-conference/
--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler(a)gmail.com