I would like to propose additions to the general disclaimer found in the footer of all Wikimedia sites.
Currently on Commons, there's a {{personality rights}} template that is applied to photos of living or recently deceased people to inform potential downloaders that this photo may not be entirely usable for them depending their intended use and whatever jurisdiction they happen to be living in.
This templates are applied inconsistently to images that probably should have them. Meanwhile, [[WP:NDA]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NDA specifically cautions against the use of disclaimers, one reason being that inconsistent use could potentially open us to legal exposure.
Note that we already have text about trademarks (at least in en-WP and Commons -- I haven't checked other sites).
Thus, I would like to see something about personality rights in images in the general disclaimer, rather than having to apply this template to each and every photo of a person to whom personality rights may apply.
Thoughts?
Thanks.
Isn't the general disclaimer a local thing rather than a global one? I think this is a matter for the individual communities, not the Foundation.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Howard Cheng howard@howcheng.com wrote:
I would like to propose additions to the general disclaimer found in the footer of all Wikimedia sites.
Currently on Commons, there's a {{personality rights}} template that is applied to photos of living or recently deceased people to inform potential downloaders that this photo may not be entirely usable for them depending their intended use and whatever jurisdiction they happen to be living in.
This templates are applied inconsistently to images that probably should have them. Meanwhile, [[WP:NDA]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NDA specifically cautions against the use of disclaimers, one reason being that inconsistent use could potentially open us to legal exposure.
Note that we already have text about trademarks (at least in en-WP and Commons -- I haven't checked other sites).
Thus, I would like to see something about personality rights in images in the general disclaimer, rather than having to apply this template to each and every photo of a person to whom personality rights may apply.
Thoughts?
Thanks.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Howard Cheng http://www.howcheng.com/ Wise-cracking quote goes here.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11/04/2008, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't the general disclaimer a local thing rather than a global one? I think this is a matter for the individual communities, not the Foundation.
It's a legal matter, so it probably does fall on the foundation.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 11/04/2008, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't the general disclaimer a local thing rather than a global one? I think this is a matter for the individual communities, not the Foundation.
It's a legal matter, so it probably does fall on the foundation.
To the best of my knowledge, the foundation has not created any of the existing disclaimers or dictated their contents. That makes them entirely community products, subject to the same process as any other wiki page. I'll defer to our lawyer if he thinks it should be otherwise, but that's how I understand the situation.
--Michael Snow
I took it upon myself to edit the English Wikinews disclaimer to qualify that not all pictures are as free or similarly licensed as the text.
So, yes, a community issue; likely one where you simply need to be bold and work from the revised wording to a consensus.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Michael Snow Sent: 12 April 2008 20:28 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Addition to the general disclaimer
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 11/04/2008, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't the general disclaimer a local thing rather than a global one? I think this is a matter for the individual communities, not the Foundation.
It's a legal matter, so it probably does fall on the foundation.
To the best of my knowledge, the foundation has not created any of the existing disclaimers or dictated their contents. That makes them entirely community products, subject to the same process as any other wiki page. I'll defer to our lawyer if he thinks it should be otherwise, but that's how I understand the situation.
--Michael Snow
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 4/12/08, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 11/04/2008, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't the general disclaimer a local thing rather than a global one? I think this is a matter for the individual communities, not the Foundation.
It's a legal matter, so it probably does fall on the foundation.
To the best of my knowledge, the foundation has not created any of the existing disclaimers or dictated their contents. That makes them entirely community products, subject to the same process as any other wiki page. I'll defer to our lawyer if he thinks it should be otherwise, but that's how I understand the situation.
--Michael Snow
If memory serves, there have been situations when stuff analogous to the disclaimers has gone at least mildly - but sufficiently in any case - awry, for the foundation to take interest in their goings on, but as far as recall (and I wouldn't trust my memory further than I can throw it :-), in each case it wasn't a situation of the foundation pouncing on the project, but use of roundabout, gentle suasion, very low key.
Trusting each community to be sensible about things and explaining things from the general mission point of view to them. In general, personally I think the foundation can afford to talk softly, and not really even measure how big their stick is.
The question of what the legal status of those documents is I think should remain as unstated as possible. I think they are communication to the reader, which is intended to be the people who do the work in the communities, making sure there are as few as possible avenues for our readers to believe there is some thing they are entitled to, implicitly or not, which they should not feel entitled to, nor for their own benefit make a mistake about what we really are.
But if The Foundations lawyer feels a compelling need to spell out precisely what the disclaimer status is and thus take the disclaimers explicitly under its aegis, or completely distance itself from them; I certainly cannot argue with that. It would surprise me though.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
On 4/12/08, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 11/04/2008, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't the general disclaimer a local thing rather than a global one? I think this is a matter for the individual communities, not the Foundation.
It's a legal matter, so it probably does fall on the foundation.
To the best of my knowledge, the foundation has not created any of the existing disclaimers or dictated their contents. That makes them entirely community products, subject to the same process as any other wiki page. I'll defer to our lawyer if he thinks it should be otherwise, but that's how I understand the situation.
--Michael Snow
If memory serves, there have been situations when stuff analogous to the disclaimers has gone at least mildly - but sufficiently in any case - awry, for the foundation to take interest in their goings on, but as far as recall (and I wouldn't trust my memory further than I can throw it :-), in each case it wasn't a situation of the foundation pouncing on the project, but use of roundabout, gentle suasion, very low key.
Trusting each community to be sensible about things and explaining things from the general mission point of view to them. In general, personally I think the foundation can afford to talk softly, and not really even measure how big their stick is.
How nicely phrased :-)
The question of what the legal status of those documents is I think should remain as unstated as possible. I think they are communication to the reader, which is intended to be the people who do the work in the communities, making sure there are as few as possible avenues for our readers to believe there is some thing they are entitled to, implicitly or not, which they should not feel entitled to, nor for their own benefit make a mistake about what we really are.
But if The Foundations lawyer feels a compelling need to spell out precisely what the disclaimer status is and thus take the disclaimers explicitly under its aegis, or completely distance itself from them; I certainly cannot argue with that. It would surprise me though.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Agreed. I just made a tweak to the disclaimer of commons, to clarify that Commons was "hosted" rather than "provided" by WMF; as well as to mention a wikimedia email address (rather than a wikia address) for the designated agent (who really should not be Jimbo anymore).
My feeling is that all projects and all languages should have a similar-looking paragraph mentionning the Foundation as host provider; and providing the appropriate contact, in particular a proper address consistant project-wide (right now, commons mentions the SF address, whilst the WMF site stills mentions the Florida address).
Aside from this little paragraph, it seems to me the community of each project should be 100% in charge of what is put in the disclaimer.
Ant
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
and providing the appropriate contact, in particular a proper address consistant project-wide (right now, commons mentions the SF address, whilst the WMF site stills mentions the Florida address).
Hrm, I don't think that is something we can just update. I asked Cary about it when we updated the "Contact us" page with the San Francisco address, and we thought that we'd need another signed letter from Congress to change the address from St. Pete to San Fran.
If you really are changing designated agents be sure to have Godwin send in a new form to the government. You don't just change it on the wiki. The Copyright Office needs a piece of paper or email to change its records.
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
and providing the appropriate contact, in particular a proper address consistant project-wide (right now, commons mentions the SF address, whilst the WMF site stills mentions the Florida address).
Hrm, I don't think that is something we can just update. I asked Cary about it when we updated the "Contact us" page with the San Francisco address, and we thought that we'd need another signed letter from Congress to change the address from St. Pete to San Fran.
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
If you really are changing designated agents be sure to have Godwin send in a new form to the government. You don't just change it on the wiki. The Copyright Office needs a piece of paper or email to change its records.
We need to know who the designated agent is so that it's accurate in the BLP policy.
Is this still correct?
Jimmy Wales, Designated Agent Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 146 2nd St N, # 310 St. Petersburg FL 33701 United States Fax: +1(727)258-0207
Sarah
Casey Brown wrote:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
and providing the appropriate contact, in particular a proper address consistant project-wide (right now, commons mentions the SF address, whilst the WMF site stills mentions the Florida address).
Hrm, I don't think that is something we can just update. I asked Cary about it when we updated the "Contact us" page with the San Francisco address, and we thought that we'd need another signed letter from Congress to change the address from St. Pete to San Fran.
I did not change this information. I am merely pointing out to it :-)
ant
Florence Devouard wrote:
Casey Brown wrote:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
and providing the appropriate contact, in particular a proper address consistant project-wide (right now, commons mentions the SF address, whilst the WMF site stills mentions the Florida address).
Hrm, I don't think that is something we can just update. I asked Cary about it when we updated the "Contact us" page with the San Francisco address, and we thought that we'd need another signed letter from Congress to change the address from St. Pete to San Fran.
I did not change this information. I am merely pointing out to it :-)
ant
Hello again
just for the record....
WAS 4.250 pointed out
"you may care to read [http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/ The US Government's copyright office's page on Online Service Providers - Service Provider Designation of Agent to Receive Notification of Claims of Infringement]. Certain rules must be followed in order to take advantage of the protections afforded by the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]]. For example, "An Interim Designation or an Amended Designation must be accompanied by an $80 fee". [http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/agents/wikimedf.pdf Our former filing in 2005] shows we paid $30 then. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 03:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)"
The email address indicated on the filling is not used anymore. It is completely spammed. It goes to an OTRS queue. The good news is that someone seems to check it from time to time, because the 79 emails (78 spam) were less than 2 days old. Still, no one should use this address anymore.
Ant
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org