The foundation does not "own and operate" the site in the way that Fox news
owns and operates their site.
The foundation merely ensures that the site operates, functions, runs.
It does not edit the contents of the site. That is the fundamental flaw in this
argument.
I really doubt that we are "promoting" the Foundation. I think we are
"promoting" (if anything) the contents of the site, which contents are created,
edited, loaded by the community. It is the uploader who is responsible for any legal
issue regarding what they have uploaded. Not the foundation.
That is how the Wikimedia sites differ from a typical site.
In the same way, Facebook is not legally responsible for some member uploaded nude
pictures of their ex-boyfriend to their page.
The user doing the uploading is responsible.
<<That in essence is the problem. A whole bunch of people promote
something called Wikimedia Foundation which says it owns and operates a
number of sites.
http://www.wikimedia.org/
and when anything controversial happens, whenever any one comes
knocking, everyone runs for a bolt hole, or looks shifty and muttering
"we got nuffin to do with it".
Its a tactic that allows Faux News to cast the Foundation as
irresponsible jerks.>>
-----Original Message-----
From: wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Fri, May 21, 2010 1:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
David Goodman wrote:
all of these problems are with other people than us.
Our copyright
license permits commercial use, and does not apply to any potential
problems other than copyright. This has nothing to do with our
licensing. The reason nobody has answered this before is that it is
irrelevant
The responsibility for following the law in uploads is with the
uploaders. It would however be good to alert them to the potential
problem.
That in essence is the problem. A whole bunch of people promote
something called Wikimedia Foundation which says it owns and operates a
number of sites.
http://www.wikimedia.org/
and when anything controversial happens, whenever any one comes
knocking, everyone runs for a bolt hole, or looks shifty and muttering
"we got nuffin to do with it".
Its a tactic that allows Faux News to cast the Foundation as
irresponsible jerks.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l