Robert Scott Horning wrote: To avoid further confusion, it should be pointed out that this "copyright registration" is something that only exists in the United States. Earlier (before 1978) the U.S. had a copyright law that required copyrights to be registered, much like patents work in other countries. If you didn't register, anybody could claim copyright to your text. The registration was not made at the patent office, but at the U.S. Copyright Office, which is a part of the Library of Congress, www.copyright.gov After the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyright_Act_of_1976 went into effect on January 1, 1978, copyright is automatically granted to anybody who creates a work (text, music, software, etc.), just like it works in other countries. This opened up a possibility of doubt about who owns the copyright to a work. Therefore, the copyright office and its registration is still available, as a safety measure, but this is a voluntary option. The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright says "In the United States, copyright has relatively recently been made automatic". The idea that copyright must be "obtained" is still very much part of the American way of thinking. To many Europeans this concept is as foreign as slavery. I am not a lawyer. -- Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

Robert Scott Horning wrote: Absolutely! Trademarks though are a different topic, and are not that big of a problem for us. Getting into that aspect of IP law would only muddy the waters. Copyright is another matter because we are in an area that is not properly covered by the law. Free licensing was an unheard of and unimaginable concept when these laws were written. In principle, copyright was invented to protect the _financial_ rights of authors. It has been more a matter of civil law than criminal law.. There is such a thing as criminal infringement for wilfull violations, but I don't think we need to worry about that aspect for now. The Berne convention mandates automatic copyright such that no person loses his copyrights because of a failure to register. The Berne convention forbids signatory states from imposing obligatory registration. The US, as a signatory to the Berne convention is also bound by this. What it does is make registration a prerequisite to filing an infringement law suit. This is useful because it helps to establish a right of action; it also imposes a limitation on the damages that can be claimed to those that were sufferred after registration. It allows you to ignore copyright infringement claims from third parties who have no personal interest in the claim. I'm sure I commented on this a couple years ago. The big problem is not with copyvio material on the wikis; we have already shown ourselves to be diligent in trying to deal with that. The likelihood of being defendants in a serious law suit are very rmote. It's far more likely that our copyrights will be violated, and we will do fuck all about it. We may go ahead with nice letters to the infringers begging them to please, please, please not infringe, but what plan is there for when they simply respond, "Go to hell!"? With copyrights lasting 70 years beyond death, what plans are there to deal with that when the relevant authors are dead, and it's not even clear who can give permission to sue. Material by unidentified authors is copyrightable just as much as material by identified authors, except that the term of copyright is counted from the date of publication. The same term applies to copyrights owned by corporations. The only practical solution would be for all contributors to appoint Wikimedia as a non-exclusive copyright agent that can go ahead and take action against copyright violators when the occasion arises. This should be stated on every edit page along with the reference to the GFDL. We should also be periodically (perhaps quarterly) dumping the entire project on a CD and registering that as evidence of the state of the wiki at a given time. Being non-exclusive will still allow the heirs of properly identified authors to take action for the longer period beyond their lifetimes. Rights which are not defended are meaningless. I think that it is essential that Wikimedia accept the responsibility to act as an agent for the protection of our collective rights. I think that this is taking it a little far. The periodic registration that I mentioned above will be prima facie evidence that the disputed material was added at the date that we claim. That should make it easier to shift the burden of proof that their material was written earlier. Mongolia is signatory to the Berne Convention. What is the basis of your claim that international copyrights do not apply there? This is a confused paragraph. Whatever the real problems, this is not one. Legal jurisdiction is based on where the offence took place, not on where the copyright owner or his servers are resident. If individuals want to protect their privacy I recognize that as their personal right for which they don't need to make an excuse. I don't know of any "official" opposition to people freely providing that information. A person who chooses to invoke his right to privacy does need .to be aware of how this will limit his copyrights. A teen contributor may still be alive and in his eighties when the copyright expires. Proof of authorship is still not essential to the subsistance of copyright. It is only essential if that individual wants to pursue his case as an individual. I agree that it is only a matter of time before these issues need to be litigated, but it is up to us to carefully circumscribe the issues so that we are not wasting our efforts on a lot of red herrings. Nothing prevents you from taking the material to the printer at your own expense, or even making a personal profit when you sell it to the public. You just need to follow the GFDL, and can't object when anyone else does the same thing. I'm sure that software could be written to handle this; go ahead and do that. Maybe the developpers will agree to make your programming a part of Mediawiki if it is fairly bug free. Nevertheless it is still not clear that it is a legal necessity. Ec