For me there is no reason to believe that Mr. Godwin is a good lawyer.
If he receives a formal (blah-blah) correct take-down-notice he will take OFFICE ACTION.
It was clearly un-lawful to take down the TU Munich logo which isn't protectable according German copyright law but WMF has done so.
It is a shame that WMF hasn't a policy of TRANSPARENCY regarding office actions. The right of the community to get all information cannot be overruled by Mr. Godwin's personal opinions about secret things.
If WMF or it's god-like counsel (who wasn't able to accept critics since I am reading this list) has taken office action - there is no way to appeal. Roma locuta causa finita ...
Klaus Graf
On 3 June 2010 00:13, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:
It was clearly un-lawful to take down the TU Munich logo which isn't protectable according German copyright law but WMF has done so.
Of course it is lawful for the WMF to remove something from a WMF site. It may not be legally necessary, but that doesn't make it un-lawful. Also, German copyright law is irrelevant - the servers are in Florida (with a few in the Netherlands) and that is where almost all the WMF's assets are based. Finally, the WMF rightfully errs on the side of caution with legal matters - just because we could win the court case doesn't mean it is worth fighting it.
Oh, one last point - next time you post a complaint to foundation-l, please include links to the relevant actions and discussions.
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:
For me there is no reason to believe that Mr. Godwin is a good lawyer.
If he receives a formal (blah-blah) correct take-down-notice he will take OFFICE ACTION.
It was clearly un-lawful to take down the TU Munich logo which isn't protectable according German copyright law but WMF has done so.
It is a shame that WMF hasn't a policy of TRANSPARENCY regarding office actions. The right of the community to get all information cannot be overruled by Mr. Godwin's personal opinions about secret things.
If WMF or it's god-like counsel (who wasn't able to accept critics since I am reading this list) has taken office action - there is no way to appeal. Roma locuta causa finita ...
Klaus Graf
Could you restate this in a way which was not personally insulting to Mike, and by implication to the Foundation as an organization?
Mike has been at the forefront of liberalizing open access to information and the open content movement for at least 23 years that I've known him.
Despite that, it's his job to see that the Foundation finds an acceptable balance point between freeing all information we can, and not being sued into oblivion by someone whose legitimate copyright we infringe. The Wikipedia project can't practically survive without a Foundation to take some legal responsibility and help keep the lights on / servers running. We are not Wikileaks - and even they have found some limits on what they can get away with, though those are fortunately loosening over time.
I can believe Mike might under some circumstances make a mistake, but assuming he's acting unreasonably or without regard for open content is assuming bad faith in the worst way. It's not called for and not helpful. Asking what happened, or trying to promote discussion on something that happened, are fine and reasonable. Just outright assaulting the Foundation and Mike is not.
Please don't do that here. Criticism can be done constructively and in good faith.
Thank you.
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:
For me there is no reason to believe that Mr. Godwin is a good lawyer.
If he receives a formal (blah-blah) correct take-down-notice he will take OFFICE ACTION.
It was clearly un-lawful to take down the TU Munich logo which isn't protectable according German copyright law but WMF has done so.
It is a shame that WMF hasn't a policy of TRANSPARENCY regarding office actions. The right of the community to get all information cannot be overruled by Mr. Godwin's personal opinions about secret things.
If WMF or it's god-like counsel (who wasn't able to accept critics since I am reading this list) has taken office action - there is no way to appeal. Roma locuta causa finita ...
Klaus Graf
Obviously some (including you) disagree but I don't feel like Mike has in any way "rejected" his critics. The is also obviously a misunderstanding about your ability to "appeal" the action. As Mike said in the email thread regarding the frWS deletions they wouldn't redelete it if someone uploaded it with an affidavit that they had the right to do so. Perhaps we should be trying to find easier ways to make everyone understand the options that the uploaders/community have when the WMF gets a takedown notice but of course you need to avoid fully giving legal advice.
It does not seem unreasonable (and to be honest seems required within the law) to delete the content when you get a proper notice. If someone then objects and reuploads the the original requester has to take legal action if they want it down, then it's up to the courts and if the courts say it has to come down it does... basically period.
James
James Alexander james.alexander@rochester.edu jamesofur@gmail.com
Hoi, The question is not so much what you believe but very much the reputation Mr Godwin has. In my appreciation he has an excellent reputation based on the many relevant jobs that he has had in the past. There are not many people who are associated with a "law" that is named after them.
When you consider the relevance of the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects, the number of jurisdictions that are associated with Wikipedias because of a language that is associated with that country it is really amazing that there are so few lawyers working for the Wikimedia Foundation.
Mr Godwin is the lawyer for the Wikimedia Foundation, he is not your lawyer, he is not the lawyer of the project where you feel at home. His job is to ensure the legal prudence of the WMF and keep its projects safe. When you feel that certain decisions of the WMF are wrong, your best line of action is to go to a lawyer that practices law in the relevant jurisdiction explain your case and have him talk to Mr Godwin. Indeed at your cost, he is after all your lawyer.
Finally as it seems to be necessary to understand Latin in order to read your rant, I want to use that language with "Cave canum". What I know of that language is thanks to those fine Gauls immortalised by Underzo and Goscinny. Brassica is translated in apekool in my language but I am not sure that translates well. Thanks, GerardM
On 3 June 2010 01:13, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:
For me there is no reason to believe that Mr. Godwin is a good lawyer.
If he receives a formal (blah-blah) correct take-down-notice he will take OFFICE ACTION.
It was clearly un-lawful to take down the TU Munich logo which isn't protectable according German copyright law but WMF has done so.
It is a shame that WMF hasn't a policy of TRANSPARENCY regarding office actions. The right of the community to get all information cannot be overruled by Mr. Godwin's personal opinions about secret things.
If WMF or it's god-like counsel (who wasn't able to accept critics since I am reading this list) has taken office action - there is no way to appeal. Roma locuta causa finita ...
Klaus Graf
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Finally as it seems to be necessary to understand Latin in order to read your rant, I want to use that language with "Cave canum". What I know of that language is thanks to those fine Gauls immortalised by Underzo and Goscinny. Brassica is translated in apekool in my language but I am not sure that translates well.
On 3 June 2010 01:13, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:
If WMF or it's god-like counsel (who wasn't able to accept critics since I am reading this list) has taken office action - there is no way to appeal. Roma locuta causa finita ...
My phrase in this connection would be in [[Dog latin]], and addressed to Mike Godwin, rather than the original poster.
"Illegitimum non carborundum est."
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On 3 June 2010 00:13, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:
For me there is no reason to believe that Mr. Godwin is a good lawyer.
If he receives a formal (blah-blah) correct take-down-notice he will take OFFICE ACTION.
It was clearly un-lawful to take down the TU Munich logo which isn't protectable according German copyright law but WMF has done so.
It is a shame that WMF hasn't a policy of TRANSPARENCY regarding office actions. The right of the community to get all information cannot be overruled by Mr. Godwin's personal opinions about secret things.
If WMF or it's god-like counsel (who wasn't able to accept critics since I am reading this list) has taken office action - there is no way to appeal. Roma locuta causa finita ...
Klaus Graf
You mean the Technical University Munich logo?
The problem is that the image servers are in the US and under US law I can see a case being made for the logo being subject to copyright.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org