On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Katherine Casey <
fluffernutter.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
All sniping aside, it seems to me the problem
(question?) here is whether
Commons's interpretation of package copyright is legally accurate, or
whether it is (like many of our projects' copyright policies) deliberately
a bit overbroad. If their packaging policy is Just How Copyright Works,
then there's not a lot we can do. Steven's points about feeling
unappreciated/bitten are something that could be worked on, but we can't
exactly change copyright law. If their packaging policy overreaches actual
copyright law, then it would be a matter of trying to adjust the Commons
policy to be more in line with real copyright law. Either way, neckbeards,
toxicity, and whining really have nothing to do with the point of this
conversation.
Respectfully, I disagree. A lot of copyright interpretation is about
interpreting complicated grey areas of the law, and assessing risks to a
large number of very different parties. The process and culture that does
the interpretation therefore matters a lot. If the culture is unfriendly,
the interpretations that come out of the process are likely to reflect the
views held by those who are the loudest, most determined shouters. A
process and culture that was more flexible and friendly would have better
odds of balancing the complex web of law, risk, and safe harbors that we
operate in. (It would also be better at finding creative solutions when all
of the options appear to suck.)
This isn't to say that every (or even most) Commons decisions are made by
shouters, or that most Commons decisions are bad ones. I've participated in
plenty of reasonable, nuanced copyright discussions with Commoners on and
off Commons, and when Commons works well it is an awesome example of what
we can do together.
But I've also seen a lot of pictures deleted with either no explanation, or
no explanation that could ever make sense to a good-faith-but-not-expert
contributor. And I've spoken to representatives from GLAMs who would much
rather work with organizations like Internet Archive, Europeana, or DPLA,
not because the GLAMs have any nefarious plans to violate copyright, but
because of their concerns about our community. So I think it is fair to say
that the way many people communicate and argue on Commons neither makes us
legally safer nor enlarges our (lower-case) commons.
So, even if I wouldn't have said "neckbeards" (and I admit I didn't see
that before I defended Stephen) I don't think it is unreasonable to use the
specifics of a particular policy to talk more broadly about how Commons
thinks about copyright, assesses risk, and communicates that to the outside
world.
Sincerely-
Luis
--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810
*This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have
received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*