Robert Scott Horning mailto:foundation-l%40wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BFoundation-l%5D%20GFDL%20publisher%20credit&In-Reply-To= wrote
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If Wikimedia wants to hold a copyright interest inthis material it needs to be ready to defend those copyrights in a serious way. Having an employee make ad-hoc, arbitrary and speculative pronouncements on the law without a clear policy from the Board to back it up probably puts the entire project into greater peril than the obvious silliness of the more ignorant copyright violators.
Ec
The precedence that I would like to use for why the WMF should hold copyright on Wikimedia project content is the same reason why the Free Software Foundation holds copyright for the GNU projects: If there is a copyright violation, they can be a legal party to enforcing the copyright and defending the GPL.
My preference here would be to have each editor appoint WMF as a non-exclusive agent for the purpose of taking all steps to defend editors' copyrights. This would prevent some distant future management from using its standing as a copyright owner to do things that can only be done by any copyright owner. By disowning any copyrights it may have in the material it also helps to maintain its distance from the content if it is ever named to defend some suit based on the contents.
The same thing (I would hope) could apply to the WMF if there is a GFDL violation. As it stands right now, by disclaiming copyright, all the WMF can do to enforce a flagarant copyright violation of Wikipedia content is sit on the sidelines and act as a cheerleader. Brad would be legally excluded from even being able to offer advise. If you are an individual contributor and want to defend the copyright of content that you wrote, you would have to hire your own counsel, as would each seperate contributor who would want to join in the legal defense.
Being agent should permit WMF to act. The potential complications if the individuals had to do everything themselves boggle the mind. There is also the question that registration of a copyright is a prerequisite for prosecuting any infringers. Whose responsibility is it to ensure that all needed registrations happen?
Frankly, I think this is an ugly situation, although it is "safe" for the WMF and from a legal liability perspective, I do understand why the decision to not claim copyright was done. The liability instead rests on the individual contributors. Each time you add some content to Wikimedia projects, particularly if you use the same account for each contribution and are prominent in the "community", you put yourself into harm's way legally speaking. You can be held responsible for the content that you added, or even failed to edit out when you made a minor change to a page. In other words, this approach to playing it safe really is just transfering liability from the WMF to individual users.
That really should be motivation to being a major contributor to Wikimedia projects, isn't it?
I have no problem with the idea of WMF being "safe", and that uploaders should be legally responsible for the material they add. I really don't agree that a person who has acted as a mere grammatical editor has published anything substantive. Such an editor bases his entire effort on what is there in front of him; the research needed to establish the legality of the substance is beyond his frame of reference.
Ec
I would agree on the grammatical editing point. For something to be copyrighted it needs to be in some way original/creative, but grammatical editing is done by a set of fixed guidelines (MoS, standard English) and isn't very creative. Therefore, it seems sensible to not consider such edits copyrightable.
On 13/07/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Robert Scott Horning mailto:foundation-l%40wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BFoundation-l%5D%20GFDL%20publisher%20credit&In-Reply-To= wrote
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If Wikimedia wants to hold a copyright interest inthis material it needs to be ready to defend those copyrights in a serious way. Having an employee make ad-hoc, arbitrary and speculative pronouncements on the law without a clear policy from the Board to back it up probably puts the entire project into greater peril than the obvious silliness of the more ignorant copyright violators.
Ec
The precedence that I would like to use for why the WMF should hold copyright on Wikimedia project content is the same reason why the Free Software Foundation holds copyright for the GNU projects: If there is a copyright violation, they can be a legal party to enforcing the copyright and defending the GPL.
My preference here would be to have each editor appoint WMF as a non-exclusive agent for the purpose of taking all steps to defend editors' copyrights. This would prevent some distant future management from using its standing as a copyright owner to do things that can only be done by any copyright owner. By disowning any copyrights it may have in the material it also helps to maintain its distance from the content if it is ever named to defend some suit based on the contents.
The same thing (I would hope) could apply to the WMF if there is a GFDL violation. As it stands right now, by disclaiming copyright, all the WMF can do to enforce a flagarant copyright violation of Wikipedia content is sit on the sidelines and act as a cheerleader. Brad would be legally excluded from even being able to offer advise. If you are an individual contributor and want to defend the copyright of content that you wrote, you would have to hire your own counsel, as would each seperate contributor who would want to join in the legal defense.
Being agent should permit WMF to act. The potential complications if the individuals had to do everything themselves boggle the mind. There is also the question that registration of a copyright is a prerequisite for prosecuting any infringers. Whose responsibility is it to ensure that all needed registrations happen?
Frankly, I think this is an ugly situation, although it is "safe" for the WMF and from a legal liability perspective, I do understand why the decision to not claim copyright was done. The liability instead rests on the individual contributors. Each time you add some content to Wikimedia projects, particularly if you use the same account for each contribution and are prominent in the "community", you put yourself into harm's way legally speaking. You can be held responsible for the content that you added, or even failed to edit out when you made a minor change to a page. In other words, this approach to playing it safe really is just transfering liability from the WMF to individual users.
That really should be motivation to being a major contributor to Wikimedia projects, isn't it?
I have no problem with the idea of WMF being "safe", and that uploaders should be legally responsible for the material they add. I really don't agree that a person who has acted as a mere grammatical editor has published anything substantive. Such an editor bases his entire effort on what is there in front of him; the research needed to establish the legality of the substance is beyond his frame of reference.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 7/13/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Robert Scott Horning said: The precedence that I would like to use for why the WMF should hold copyright on Wikimedia project content is the same reason why the Free Software Foundation holds copyright for the GNU projects: If there is a copyright violation, they can be a legal party to enforcing the copyright and defending the GPL.
My preference here would be to have each editor appoint WMF as a non-exclusive agent for the purpose of taking all steps to defend editors' copyrights.
Optionally, I hope. I personally have no desire to sue people over the vast majority of my legal rights under copyright law. Basically, as long as you don't take my works and then create a non-free derivative, I don't care what you do with it, at least so far as copyright law is concerned.
Frankly, I'd hope that the WMF would do the same, and only use lawsuits to make works more free, not less.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
On 7/13/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Robert Scott Horning said: The precedence that I would like to use for why the WMF should hold copyright on Wikimedia project content is the same reason why the Free Software Foundation holds copyright for the GNU projects: If there is a copyright violation, they can be a legal party to enforcing the copyright and defending the GPL.
My preference here would be to have each editor appoint WMF as a non-exclusive agent for the purpose of taking all steps to defend editors' copyrights.
Optionally, I hope. I personally have no desire to sue people over the vast majority of my legal rights under copyright law. Basically, as long as you don't take my works and then create a non-free derivative, I don't care what you do with it, at least so far as copyright law is concerned.
I think that that view is shared by most of us who have a philosophical attachment to the concept of free information.
Frankly, I'd hope that the WMF would do the same, and only use lawsuits to make works more free, not less.
I presume that with "optionally" you are referring to WMF retaining the option to sue or not sue based on the circumstances of the situation, and not that each editor has an option about naming WMF as agent ... sometimes. The alternative would only create more confusion when the WMF's right to pursue the matter comes up. On the other hand, it would be ridiculous to demand that WMF pursue with vigour every bit of perceived copyvio.
This also relates to the need for the Board to take a clear policy position that every credited extract from any WMF project not exceeding a pre-defined size will be considered as fair use throughout the world. By agreeing not to prosecute certain apparent violations in civil actions, or to co-operate with authorities in criminal prosecutions it would be a big step forward in establishing a level playing field for fair use.
Ec
On 7/14/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 7/13/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Robert Scott Horning said: The precedence that I would like to use for why the WMF should hold copyright on Wikimedia project content is the same reason why the Free Software Foundation holds copyright for the GNU projects: If there is a copyright violation, they can be a legal party to enforcing the copyright and defending the GPL.
My preference here would be to have each editor appoint WMF as a non-exclusive agent for the purpose of taking all steps to defend editors' copyrights.
Optionally, I hope. I personally have no desire to sue people over the vast majority of my legal rights under copyright law. Basically, as long as you don't take my works and then create a non-free derivative, I don't care what you do with it, at least so far as copyright law is concerned.
I think that that view is shared by most of us who have a philosophical attachment to the concept of free information.
I dunno. I've seen an awful lot of lawsuit-happy Wikipedians. I've even been legally threatened by a number of them for running a mirror site.
Frankly, I'd hope that the WMF would do the same, and only use lawsuits to make works more free, not less.
I presume that with "optionally" you are referring to WMF retaining the option to sue or not sue based on the circumstances of the situation, and not that each editor has an option about naming WMF as agent ... sometimes. The alternative would only create more confusion when the WMF's right to pursue the matter comes up. On the other hand, it would be ridiculous to demand that WMF pursue with vigour every bit of perceived copyvio.
What I'm saying is that if the WMF requires me to give it the right to enter into copyright lawsuits on my behalf, I won't ever contribute anything to Wikipedia or any of the other projects again. (I suppose I'd make an exception for those things that I'm willing to give to the public domain).
I don't want the WMF to have the option to sue or not sue based on the circumstances of the situation. I obviously can't stop others from giving them this right, but I won't give it to them for my own content.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
I presume that with "optionally" you are referring to WMF retaining the option to sue or not sue based on the circumstances of the situation, and not that each editor has an option about naming WMF as agent ... sometimes. The alternative would only create more confusion when the WMF's right to pursue the matter comes up. On the other hand, it would be ridiculous to demand that WMF pursue with vigour every bit of perceived copyvio.
What I'm saying is that if the WMF requires me to give it the right to enter into copyright lawsuits on my behalf, I won't ever contribute anything to Wikipedia or any of the other projects again. (I suppose I'd make an exception for those things that I'm willing to give to the public domain).
I don't want the WMF to have the option to sue or not sue based on the circumstances of the situation. I obviously can't stop others from giving them this right, but I won't give it to them for my own content.
Anthony
I hope that you are correct and I am wrong in a concern about the lack of a copyright over Wikimedia project content by the WMF. I can't possibly envision all of the situations that real life might bring up, and I've seen over the years too many unusual situations to be able to even predict just what might be an issue in the future that would require a WMF copyright claim on project content. It just seems as though the dismissal of claim of copyright hasn't been completely thought through, nor is this denial of claim formal either.
What I am suggesting is that if the WMF has a copyright claim on project content (not necessarily exclusive claim, which is a different issue), there are both good and bad legal points to be made about what the consequences of that copyright claim might be, as is also the case of a denial of copyright claim entirely. Often some organizations will assume liability on behalf of their members, especially volunteers, for official activities of that organization. The American Red Cross and the Boy Scouts of America are two organizations I know of that do this for their volunteers. As a volunteer scouter, if I get sued because of my activities when involved with working with youth, the Boy Scouts will have their legal representatives consult with me over the situation and defend me in court. There are official policies and such that must be followed, and I have to convince them that I was following those polices, but the safty net is there to help me volunteer. I don't know how far the WMF would go to defend project contributors who are acting in good faith and follow project and WMF policies to the best of their ability. I hope I never find out.
On 7/14/06, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I presume that with "optionally" you are referring to WMF retaining the option to sue or not sue based on the circumstances of the situation, and not that each editor has an option about naming WMF as agent ... sometimes. The alternative would only create more confusion when the WMF's right to pursue the matter comes up. On the other hand, it would be ridiculous to demand that WMF pursue with vigour every bit of perceived copyvio.
What I'm saying is that if the WMF requires me to give it the right to enter into copyright lawsuits on my behalf, I won't ever contribute anything to Wikipedia or any of the other projects again. (I suppose I'd make an exception for those things that I'm willing to give to the public domain).
I don't want the WMF to have the option to sue or not sue based on the circumstances of the situation. I obviously can't stop others from giving them this right, but I won't give it to them for my own content.
Anthony
I hope that you are correct and I am wrong in a concern about the lack of a copyright over Wikimedia project content by the WMF. I can't possibly envision all of the situations that real life might bring up, and I've seen over the years too many unusual situations to be able to even predict just what might be an issue in the future that would require a WMF copyright claim on project content. It just seems as though the dismissal of claim of copyright hasn't been completely thought through, nor is this denial of claim formal either.
What I am suggesting is that if the WMF has a copyright claim on project content (not necessarily exclusive claim, which is a different issue), there are both good and bad legal points to be made about what the consequences of that copyright claim might be, as is also the case of a denial of copyright claim entirely.
Actually, I think the WMF most likely *does* have its own independent claim of copyright on project content, which is why I have asked them to formally and explicity disclaim any such interest (assuming Danny is correct that they don't want it). But any lawsuits the WMF enters into on its own behalf would, I think (IANAL), require the WMF to have its own independent standing. Now this is complicated by the fact that the GFDL has that (annoying, IMO) automatic termination clause (section 9), but I would like to think that a judge wouldn't let the WMF sue me because I, for instance, left out User:Wik from an author list.
Anyway, my content, which I contribute, is copyrighted by me, and if someone takes only that content and no one elses than I only I have the right to sue over the "misuse" of it. If someone wants to take my content (and the content of others like me) and use it in a CC-by-SA work, for instance, I'm not going to sue them, even though that technically violates the GFDL. Presumably the WMF wouldn't sue them either, but I can imagine situations in which the WMF would be likely to sue and I wouldn't. If the WMF does have a copyright interest in Wikipedia, it is likely quite easy to separate out those parts and still use the rest, at least for something on the level of a small subset of the overall collection.
Anthony
Often some organizations will assume liability on behalf of their members, especially volunteers, for official activities of that organization. The American Red Cross and the Boy Scouts of America are two organizations I know of that do this for their volunteers. As a volunteer scouter, if I get sued because of my activities when involved with working with youth, the Boy Scouts will have their legal representatives consult with me over the situation and defend me in court. There are official policies and such that must be followed, and I have to convince them that I was following those polices, but the safty net is there to help me volunteer. I don't know how far the WMF would go to defend project contributors who are acting in good faith and follow project and WMF policies to the best of their ability. I hope I never find out.
-- Robert Scott Horning
Anthony wrote:
On 7/14/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 7/13/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote
Robert Scott Horning said: The precedence that I would like to use for why the WMF should hold copyright on Wikimedia project content is the same reason why the Free Software Foundation holds copyright for the GNU projects: If there is a copyright violation, they can be a legal party to enforcing the copyright and defending the GPL.
My preference here would be to have each editor appoint WMF as a non-exclusive agent for the purpose of taking all steps to defend editors' copyrights.
Optionally, I hope. I personally have no desire to sue people over the vast majority of my legal rights under copyright law. Basically, as long as you don't take my works and then create a non-free derivative, I don't care what you do with it, at least so far as copyright law is concerned.
I think that that view is shared by most of us who have a philosophical attachment to the concept of free information.
I dunno. I've seen an awful lot of lawsuit-happy Wikipedians. I've even been legally threatened by a number of them for running a mirror site.
Hmmm! Maybe things are worse than I imagined. I've gradually come to the conclusion that the more mirrors and forks we have, the better. I've even considered that having more fair use material may in fact help free use.
As for you "lawsuit-happy Wikipedians", they often fail to see the big step between threatening a lawsuit and starting one. My only answer to them would be, "So do it!"
Frankly, I'd hope that the WMF would do the same, and only use lawsuits to make works more free, not less.
I presume that with "optionally" you are referring to WMF retaining the option to sue or not sue based on the circumstances of the situation, and not that each editor has an option about naming WMF as agent ... sometimes. The alternative would only create more confusion when the WMF's right to pursue the matter comes up. On the other hand, it would be ridiculous to demand that WMF pursue with vigour every bit of perceived copyvio.
What I'm saying is that if the WMF requires me to give it the right to enter into copyright lawsuits on my behalf, I won't ever contribute anything to Wikipedia or any of the other projects again. (I suppose I'd make an exception for those things that I'm willing to give to the public domain).
If it's in the public domain, there's no copyvio, and no rights to give.
I don't want the WMF to have the option to sue or not sue based on the circumstances of the situation. I obviously can't stop others from giving them this right, but I won't give it to them for my own content.
Circumstances to me mostly have to do with the severity of the copyvio, or whether a particular case is practical or worth it.
It may be enough for one editor on a page to give them the right to sue.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Robert Scott Horning
The same thing (I would hope) could apply to the WMF if there is a GFDL violation. As it stands right now, by disclaiming copyright, all the WMF can do to enforce a flagarant copyright violation of Wikipedia content is sit on the sidelines and act as a cheerleader. Brad would be legally excluded from even being able to offer advise. If you are an individual contributor and want to defend the copyright of content that you wrote, you would have to hire your own counsel, as would each seperate contributor who would want to join in the legal defense.
Being agent should permit WMF to act. The potential complications if the individuals had to do everything themselves boggle the mind. There is also the question that registration of a copyright is a prerequisite for prosecuting any infringers. Whose responsibility is it to ensure that all needed registrations happen?
Registration is certainly nice in GFDL and most copyleft enforcement because it sets up a minimum statutory penalty if you can prove copyright infringement. Otherwise you can only seek actual damages. Note that the registration must take place before the infringement occurs. This is something I've discussed at length on this mailing list before, with many individuals on this list quite against formal registration, and deliberate obfuscation of user information that would make such registration difficult to impossible.
All I'm pointing out is that the situation right now is exactly up to individual contributors, and you are correct, it boggles the mind to think what is really necessary to do this enforcement.
Frankly, I think this is an ugly situation, although it is "safe" for the WMF and from a legal liability perspective, I do understand why the decision to not claim copyright was done. The liability instead rests on the individual contributors. Each time you add some content to Wikimedia projects, particularly if you use the same account for each contribution and are prominent in the "community", you put yourself into harm's way legally speaking. You can be held responsible for the content that you added, or even failed to edit out when you made a minor change to a page. In other words, this approach to playing it safe really is just transfering liability from the WMF to individual users.
That really should be motivation to being a major contributor to Wikimedia projects, isn't it?
I have no problem with the idea of WMF being "safe", and that uploaders should be legally responsible for the material they add. I really don't agree that a person who has acted as a mere grammatical editor has published anything substantive. Such an editor bases his entire effort on what is there in front of him; the research needed to establish the legality of the substance is beyond his frame of reference.
Ec
I'm not saying that a person who adds some minor edit to a Wikipedia article that is then brought up in a libel lawsuit is necessarily going to be completely held responsible for everything in that article, but liability is certainly there to an extent and it wouldn't surprise me if your name was brought up in a formal lawsuit that simply decided to go after every contributor in the history of the article, even if all you did was revert blatant vandalism at one point acting in good faith. That would still take some time to explain even what reverting vandalism is to a judge, who has no clue about MediaWiki software and wouldn't even really understand the role of admins or vandalism patrols in Wikimedia projects. I'm sure such a judge in a lawsuit like that would learn real fast, but you would have to get a lawyer and defend yourself first. As the John Siegenthaler situation suggests, there may be some individuals who really get bent out of shape for what content is in Wikipedia and don't care to seek redress from within the Wikimedia community of users and editors. And if you reverted one form of vandalism, the question would be raised as to why you let other blatantly wrong facts about a person or company go unchecked.
I hope that nobody really has to deal with these issues, and I'm also sure that if there was a problem that a "legal defense fund" could be set up very quickly to help out Wikimedia users who through no fault of their own got tied up with these issues.
I was involved briefly with the DVD de-CSS software and "dodged the bullet" when my involvement was only peripheral to the lawsuits that were thrown around by the MPAA and the DVD Fourm for cracking the encryption used on DVD-Video discs. And this was GPL'd software that the only justification for filing the lawsuit was a violation of a trade secret by somebody who did reverse engineering of software and didn't have any affiliation with any company producing DVD software. I do know some of the people who were dragged into court over that issue, and it was a pain to try and deal with. With the technical books that are on Wikibooks, I don't see a reason why that sort of situation might not repeat itself again but with written publications instead.... even if the situation turns out to be perfectly legal. And the liability would indeed rest on the contributors in this situation.
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Robert Scott Horning
The same thing (I would hope) could apply to the WMF if there is a GFDL violation. As it stands right now, by disclaiming copyright, all the WMF can do to enforce a flagarant copyright violation of Wikipedia content is sit on the sidelines and act as a cheerleader. Brad would be legally excluded from even being able to offer advise. If you are an individual contributor and want to defend the copyright of content that you wrote, you would have to hire your own counsel, as would each seperate contributor who would want to join in the legal defense.
Being agent should permit WMF to act. The potential complications if the individuals had to do everything themselves boggle the mind. There is also the question that registration of a copyright is a prerequisite for prosecuting any infringers. Whose responsibility is it to ensure that all needed registrations happen?
Registration is certainly nice in GFDL and most copyleft enforcement because it sets up a minimum statutory penalty if you can prove copyright infringement. Otherwise you can only seek actual damages. Note that the registration must take place before the infringement occurs. This is something I've discussed at length on this mailing list before, with many individuals on this list quite against formal registration, and deliberate obfuscation of user information that would make such registration difficult to impossible.
All I'm pointing out is that the situation right now is exactly up to individual contributors, and you are correct, it boggles the mind to think what is really necessary to do this enforcement.
The problem with actual damages is that they are measured in monetary terms and need to be proven. Since we all give our services for free there is no damage to be proven. Only statutory damages make sense. Of course anyone with a copyright interest in a work should be legally entitled to file a registration. Those with more radical views about the nature of free content should have no business preventing others from protecting their own rights. If they want to remain anonymous that would still be their choice. The material that should be registered could be in the form of a data dump onto CD(s) that are sent monthly or on some other regular basis.
Frankly, I think this is an ugly situation, although it is "safe" for the WMF and from a legal liability perspective, I do understand why the decision to not claim copyright was done. The liability instead rests on the individual contributors. Each time you add some content to Wikimedia projects, particularly if you use the same account for each contribution and are prominent in the "community", you put yourself into harm's way legally speaking. You can be held responsible for the content that you added, or even failed to edit out when you made a minor change to a page. In other words, this approach to playing it safe really is just transfering liability from the WMF to individual users.
That really should be motivation to being a major contributor to Wikimedia projects, isn't it?
I have no problem with the idea of WMF being "safe", and that uploaders should be legally responsible for the material they add. I really don't agree that a person who has acted as a mere grammatical editor has published anything substantive. Such an editor bases his entire effort on what is there in front of him; the research needed to establish the legality of the substance is beyond his frame of reference.
I'm not saying that a person who adds some minor edit to a Wikipedia article that is then brought up in a libel lawsuit is necessarily going to be completely held responsible for everything in that article, but liability is certainly there to an extent and it wouldn't surprise me if your name was brought up in a formal lawsuit that simply decided to go after every contributor in the history of the article, even if all you did was revert blatant vandalism at one point acting in good faith. That would still take some time to explain even what reverting vandalism is to a judge, who has no clue about MediaWiki software and wouldn't even really understand the role of admins or vandalism patrols in Wikimedia projects. I'm sure such a judge in a lawsuit like that would learn real fast, but you would have to get a lawyer and defend yourself first. As the John Siegenthaler situation suggests, there may be some individuals who really get bent out of shape for what content is in Wikipedia and don't care to seek redress from within the Wikimedia community of users and editors. And if you reverted one form of vandalism, the question would be raised as to why you let other blatantly wrong facts about a person or company go unchecked.
I hope that nobody really has to deal with these issues, and I'm also sure that if there was a problem that a "legal defense fund" could be set up very quickly to help out Wikimedia users who through no fault of their own got tied up with these issues.
I was involved briefly with the DVD de-CSS software and "dodged the bullet" when my involvement was only peripheral to the lawsuits that were thrown around by the MPAA and the DVD Fourm for cracking the encryption used on DVD-Video discs. And this was GPL'd software that the only justification for filing the lawsuit was a violation of a trade secret by somebody who did reverse engineering of software and didn't have any affiliation with any company producing DVD software. I do know some of the people who were dragged into court over that issue, and it was a pain to try and deal with. With the technical books that are on Wikibooks, I don't see a reason why that sort of situation might not repeat itself again but with written publications instead.... even if the situation turns out to be perfectly legal. And the liability would indeed rest on the contributors in this situation.
I'm not one to go around stiffled by the fear of lawsuits. I don't add anything that I would not be willing to defend if the situation arose. I had never heard of Seigenthaler before he became a Wikipedia issue. If I had I would have been unlikely to enter into a detailed search for corroborating evidence because I would not have been sufficiently interested in the subject. On the other hand, I could imagine myself making minor grammatical and spelling changes. I already do a bit of that when I'm otherwise just reading the article for information.
I'm also one of those people who would prefer to fight his own case without hiring lawyers Whether someone would be so impractical as to sue everybody on the author list remains to be seen, but it could be fun. ;-)
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
Registration is certainly nice in GFDL and most copyleft enforcement because it sets up a minimum statutory penalty if you can prove copyright infringement. Otherwise you can only seek actual damages. Note that the registration must take place before the infringement occurs. This is something I've discussed at length on this mailing list before, with many individuals on this list quite against formal registration, and deliberate obfuscation of user information that would make such registration difficult to impossible.
All I'm pointing out is that the situation right now is exactly up to individual contributors, and you are correct, it boggles the mind to think what is really necessary to do this enforcement.
The problem with actual damages is that they are measured in monetary terms and need to be proven. Since we all give our services for free there is no damage to be proven. Only statutory damages make sense. Of course anyone with a copyright interest in a work should be legally entitled to file a registration. Those with more radical views about the nature of free content should have no business preventing others from protecting their own rights. If they want to remain anonymous that would still be their choice. The material that should be registered could be in the form of a data dump onto CD(s) that are sent monthly or on some other regular basis.
Ec
One of the requirements for formal registration of copyright require that you document the nationality and residence (the name of the country you live in is sufficient) of all copyright claimants. The purpose of this is to know what laws actually protect the content, as international copyright conventions do apply and nationality does have some impact on copyright protection.
I made a request almost a year ago that Wikimedia projects allow voluntary declaration of this information (I don't think it should ever be compelled), together with your real legal name for this purpose. The proposal was mainly that such information could be put into the user preferences section where you also put your sig and some other personal details like e-mail address. Even asking for voluntary declarations of information like this was met with incredible hostility and accusations that I didn't understand the WMF privacy policy. The purpose of collecting this information was specifically so I could file formal copyright registration on behalf of Wikibooks users including myself.
BTW, the Library of Congress does not have a maximum limit of only 5 copyright claimants, but since the GFDL suggests the number of 5 people listed, most people assume that is the most that you are permitted to list as authors. It is not, and I don't see a problem with listing 20 or more people, as can happen with some Wikimedia projects. For Wikibooks, that can be 20 different people with significant contributions. My reading of the GFDL is that it suggests that you should list at least five different people if there were that many contributors, and that meets the minimum terms of the GFDL, and not necessarily even the minimum requirements for copyright law.
For the Wikijunior books and for some of the other Wikibooks, this information is being collected more informally in "author" pages where this information is being listed. It is also assumed that when a Wikibook is published, that this information will also be used (at least the author's names) as credit for who helped put together the content. Again, this is all voluntary and some people have removed their names from these author pages as well for various reasons. Even these pages have been controvercial, with some cries to have them all deleted and banned by policy. This is why I say that the WMF is encouraging deliberate obfusaction of user information preventing copyright registration.
At the moment, however, I don't know of any specific content for any Wikimedia project that has had formal copyright registration occur. And you are correct that trying to prove damages that a free project like this would be difficult at best for any monitary amount, although I think a judge could still come up with at least some modest amount just to prove a point that copyright violations are wrong to do, even for free content.
On 7/14/06, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
BTW, the Library of Congress does not have a maximum limit of only 5 copyright claimants, but since the GFDL suggests the number of 5 people listed, most people assume that is the most that you are permitted to list as authors. It is not, and I don't see a problem with listing 20 or more people, as can happen with some Wikimedia projects. For Wikibooks, that can be 20 different people with significant contributions. My reading of the GFDL is that it suggests that you should list at least five different people if there were that many contributors, and that meets the minimum terms of the GFDL, and not necessarily even the minimum requirements for copyright law.
This is a common misconception. The GFDL requires you list at least 5 authors (plus yourself) *on the title page*. You are still required to list *all* authors on the history page.
Anthony
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
Registration is certainly nice in GFDL and most copyleft enforcement because it sets up a minimum statutory penalty if you can prove copyright infringement. Otherwise you can only seek actual damages. Note that the registration must take place before the infringement occurs. This is something I've discussed at length on this mailing list before, with many individuals on this list quite against formal registration, and deliberate obfuscation of user information that would make such registration difficult to impossible.
All I'm pointing out is that the situation right now is exactly up to individual contributors, and you are correct, it boggles the mind to think what is really necessary to do this enforcement.
The problem with actual damages is that they are measured in monetary terms and need to be proven. Since we all give our services for free there is no damage to be proven. Only statutory damages make sense. Of course anyone with a copyright interest in a work should be legally entitled to file a registration. Those with more radical views about the nature of free content should have no business preventing others
from protecting their own rights. If they want to remain anonymous that
would still be their choice. The material that should be registered could be in the form of a data dump onto CD(s) that are sent monthly or on some other regular basis.
One of the requirements for formal registration of copyright require that you document the nationality and residence (the name of the country you live in is sufficient) of all copyright claimants. The purpose of this is to know what laws actually protect the content, as international copyright conventions do apply and nationality does have some impact on copyright protection.
Registration is still not a requirement for owning copyright, only for seeking remedies. The United States had to remove the registration requirement because international treaties forbid it. I haven't investigated this, but it seems that these administrative requirements for registration may derive from regulations rather than statutes. Perhaps foreign editors can grant jurisdiction to US courts on this. The requested details may be impossible to untangle for a variety of reasons. Author lists for every article can be provided, but the usefulness of those list is highly questionable. You could take the approach that it is the responsibility of the US Government to primarily protect the interests of its own citizens both at home and abroad. If some foreigner accidently gets protected that's a bonus. Government forms are produced with the majority in mind. At the time these things were first produced it would have been unimaginable to think that a publication could have many thousands of mostly unidentifiable authors. If you contact somebody at the copyright office who knows how to think outside the box, some kind of solution may be available.
I made a request almost a year ago that Wikimedia projects allow voluntary declaration of this information (I don't think it should ever be compelled), together with your real legal name for this purpose. The proposal was mainly that such information could be put into the user preferences section where you also put your sig and some other personal details like e-mail address. Even asking for voluntary declarations of information like this was met with incredible hostility and accusations that I didn't understand the WMF privacy policy. The purpose of collecting this information was specifically so I could file formal copyright registration on behalf of Wikibooks users including myself.
I remember that. Did you seriously expect that it would be any different? ;-) It's Dilbert's cubicle on a global scale. :-) Some obsessions with privacy verge on paranoia. Those individuals need to realize that there's a downside to that.
BTW, the Library of Congress does not have a maximum limit of only 5 copyright claimants, but since the GFDL suggests the number of 5 people listed, most people assume that is the most that you are permitted to list as authors. It is not, and I don't see a problem with listing 20 or more people, as can happen with some Wikimedia projects. For Wikibooks, that can be 20 different people with significant contributions. My reading of the GFDL is that it suggests that you should list at least five different people if there were that many contributors, and that meets the minimum terms of the GFDL, and not necessarily even the minimum requirements for copyright law.
LOC may not have a maximum limit of 5, but can it handle thousands? As far as all this goes GFDL is a separate issue. A good summary of what you are saying is, "Many people don't know how to read."
For the Wikijunior books and for some of the other Wikibooks, this information is being collected more informally in "author" pages where this information is being listed. It is also assumed that when a Wikibook is published, that this information will also be used (at least the author's names) as credit for who helped put together the content. Again, this is all voluntary and some people have removed their names from these author pages as well for various reasons. Even these pages have been controvercial, with some cries to have them all deleted and banned by policy. This is why I say that the WMF is encouraging deliberate obfusaction of user information preventing copyright registration.
AFAIK there has only been one takedown order recently. These should all be made public, and the affected authors notified, because anybody can file for a putback. I don't see things as "deliberate", but there is a strong need for leadership at the Board level on this issue.
At the moment, however, I don't know of any specific content for any Wikimedia project that has had formal copyright registration occur. And you are correct that trying to prove damages that a free project like this would be difficult at best for any monitary amount, although I think a judge could still come up with at least some modest amount just to prove a point that copyright violations are wrong to do, even for free content.
I don't know that a judge would do that. Imposing punitive damages without legal authority is something that could be easily reversed on appeal. The statutory damages provisions in effect are what provides the authority. The judge then has flexibility within the numerical boundaries in the law.
I know of no existing registrations either. Perhaps the way to go would be to boldly go forth, listing the authors you know and adding "plus XX unidentified authors." Sending one in will at least let you know if it gets accepted. Beyond that, you certainly should not be the one stuck with the burden of the filing fees for a large number of registrations.
Ec
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
At the moment, however, I don't know of any specific content for any Wikimedia project that has had formal copyright registration occur. And you are correct that trying to prove damages that a free project like this would be difficult at best for any monitary amount, although I think a judge could still come up with at least some modest amount just to prove a point that copyright violations are wrong to do, even for free content.
I don't know that a judge would do that. Imposing punitive damages without legal authority is something that could be easily reversed on appeal. The statutory damages provisions in effect are what provides the authority. The judge then has flexibility within the numerical boundaries in the law.
What I was trying to imply here is that a case for some damages might still be made, even though by being made available for "free" would certainly made such award astonishingly small compared to what you would have gained from trying to publish content with a more conventional "all rights reserved" copyright. The formula for determining that award would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis and would be something close to a nightmare for a judge to determine, or a plaintiff to present as reasonable for copyleft content. Copyleft content does have some restrictions, and a violation of copyleft principles can potentially show some damage depending on how blatant of a copyright violation was done that completely ignored the license but treated it as public domain content instead.
Having statutory damages available would act as a much better deterant from people who wouldn't care about any copyright infringement or violations of the terms of a license like the GFDL. I think on this point we are agreed.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org