French authorship rights law:
Article L121-1 An author shall enjoy the right to respect for his name, his authorship and his work. This right shall attach to his person. It shall be perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible. It may be transmitted mortis causa to the heirs of the author. Exercise may be conferred on another person under the provisions of a will.
http://195.83.177.9/code/liste.phtml?lang=uk&c=36&r=2497
"perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible" means that they cannot be waived. It also means that they are enshrined in French law as dearly as human rights.
In my opinion, the people who want to attack this, are on a sloppery slope where the next step is when they request you to waive your human rights.
French authorship rights law:
Article L121-1 An author shall enjoy the right to respect for his name, his authorship and his work. This right shall attach to his person. It shall be perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible. It may be transmitted mortis causa to the heirs of the author. Exercise may be conferred on another person under the provisions of a will.
http://195.83.177.9/code/liste.phtml?lang=uk&c=36&r=2497
"perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible" means that they cannot be waived. It also means that they are enshrined in French law as dearly as human rights.
In my opinion, the people who want to attack this, are on a sloppery slope where the next step is when they request you to waive your human rights.
Nothing is enshrined in French law as dearly as human rights...
It would seem that the right to license one's own work as one chooses is one of those rights. How does French law resolve that conflict?
Surely after 200 years there should be some illustrative cases.
Fred
It would seem that the right to license one's own work as one chooses is one of those rights. How does French law resolve that conflict?
By declaring that the contract where the contractant "chooses" to waive a fundamental right is void.
You find the same line of thought in Jean Jacques Rousseau's social contract :
"To say that a man gives himself gratuitously, is to say what is absurd and inconceivable; such an act is null and illegitimate, from the mere fact that he who does it is out of his mind."
French : "Dire qu’un homme se donne gratuitement, c’est dire une chose absurde et inconcevable ; un tel acte est illégitime et nul, par cela seul que celui qui le fait n’est pas dans son bon sens. "
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract/Book_I#4._Slavery
No one wants to attack French moral rights, or the attack the idiosyncrasies of any particular legal jurisdiction. What we want to do is curate a large international collection of free content that will remain free content 300 years from now after all of us are dead and can no longer be personally vigilant regarding those who might try to restrict the descendants of our collected content from others. What is it that you want to do?
Birgitte SB
________________________________ From: Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sun, February 27, 2011 11:02:15 AM Subject: [Foundation-l] Moral rights
French authorship rights law:
Article L121-1 An author shall enjoy the right to respect for his name, his authorship and his work. This right shall attach to his person. It shall be perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible. It may be transmitted mortis causa to the heirs of the author. Exercise may be conferred on another person under the provisions of a will.
http://195.83.177.9/code/liste.phtml?lang=uk&c=36&r=2497
"perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible" means that they cannot be waived. It also means that they are enshrined in French law as dearly as human rights.
In my opinion, the people who want to attack this, are on a sloppery slope where the next step is when they request you to waive your human rights.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2011/2/27 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
No one wants to attack French moral rights, or the attack the idiosyncrasies of any particular legal jurisdiction. What we want to do is curate a large international collection of free content that will remain free content 300 years from now after all of us are dead and can no longer be personally vigilant regarding those who might try to restrict the descendants of our collected content from others. What is it that you want to do?
Birgitte SB
No one ? I would not say so. I would rather say that 75.8% (1) want to attack moral rights, which are not French only (3), and, as I showed in my previous mail, are a value taken into account in Wikimedia projects in such documents as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_en...
It might have become a core value of the Wikimedia communities. But if community leaders lead the community into the wrong way... you end up with a 75.8 majority going into the wrong way.
"you hereby agree that such credit is sufficient in any medium" (2) means that creators are no longer attributed personally.
(1) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Result (2) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update (3) For example Spanish copyright law article 14 "derechos irrenunciables e inalienables (...) Exigir el reconocimiento de su condición de autor de la obra"
http://civil.udg.es/normacivil/estatal/reals/Lpi.html
They are also provided an international recognition in the Berne Convention Article 6bis : "Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation."
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726
On 4 March 2011 11:05, Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com wrote:
No one ? I would not say so. I would rather say that 75.8% (1) want to attack moral rights, which are not French only (3), and, as I showed in my previous mail, are a value taken into account in Wikimedia projects in such documents as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_en... It might have become a core value of the Wikimedia communities. But if community leaders lead the community into the wrong way... you end up with a 75.8 majority going into the wrong way.
See, when most people have an overwhelming majority against them they consider the possibility they might be in the wrong community.
- d.
2011/3/4 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 4 March 2011 11:05, Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com wrote:
No one ? I would not say so. I would rather say that 75.8% (1) want to attack moral rights, which are not French only (3), and, as I showed in my previous mail, are a value taken into account in Wikimedia projects in such documents as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_en... It might have become a core value of the Wikimedia communities. But if community leaders lead the community into the wrong way... you end up with a 75.8 majority going into the wrong way.
See, when most people have an overwhelming majority against them they consider the possibility they might be in the wrong community.
Thanks for your warm feelings and also for ruling out that anybody can change his/her mind (including myself). That when they have started voting for something, they must go on voting for the same thing their life long. For ruling out that people having different views can live together. That the minority view is the wrong view.
2011/3/4 Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com: (...)
(3) For example Spanish copyright law article 14 "derechos irrenunciables e inalienables (...) Exigir el reconocimiento de su condición de autor de la obra"
http://civil.udg.es/normacivil/estatal/reals/Lpi.html
They are also provided an international recognition in the Berne Convention Article 6bis : "Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation."
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726
See also the Japanese copyright law article 19 "the author shall have the right to determine whether his true name or pseudonym should be indicated or not, as the name of the author, on the original of his work or when his work is offered to or made available to the public. The author shall have the same right with respect to the indication of his name when works derived form his work are offered to or made available to the public"
http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/cl2_1.html#cl2_1+SS2
coupled together with article 59 "Moral rights of the author shall be exclusively personal to him and inalienable." Inalienable means they can't be either sold or waived.": incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred " http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable
http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/cl2_2.html#cl2_2+S5
So it is not just a crazy French or European thing. How can so many countries' legislatures be wrong ?
2011/3/4 Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com:
2011/3/4 Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com: (...)
(3) For example Spanish copyright law article 14 "derechos irrenunciables e inalienables (...) Exigir el reconocimiento de su condición de autor de la obra"
http://civil.udg.es/normacivil/estatal/reals/Lpi.html
They are also provided an international recognition in the Berne Convention Article 6bis : "Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation."
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726
See also the Japanese copyright law article 19 "the author shall have the right to determine whether his true name or pseudonym should be indicated or not, as the name of the author, on the original of his work or when his work is offered to or made available to the public. The author shall have the same right with respect to the indication of his name when works derived form his work are offered to or made available to the public"
http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/cl2_1.html#cl2_1+SS2
coupled together with article 59 "Moral rights of the author shall be exclusively personal to him and inalienable." Inalienable means they can't be either sold or waived.": incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred " http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable
http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/cl2_2.html#cl2_2+S5
So it is not just a crazy French or European thing. How can so many countries' legislatures be wrong ?
Until the 2009 license change, there was a narrow path with GFDL, enabling to build Wikipedia in each country without breaking too many laws (1). But with the 2009 license change, WMF is behaving like a bull in a china shop.
(1) Even if you did everything right with Moral Rights, the French law is still broken in a couple of places. But this is not a scoop. Remember what Lawrence Lessig said about German law in http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Quarto/2/En-5
Next thing these people will shutdown wikipedia because the french law says impre*scriptible*, and they will say that because wikipedia uses JS and so is scriptable, it shouldn't be around. What don't you like about the licence anyway? It is my opinion that the laws of the most influentual country apply on the wiki served by it. You can't expect English Wikipedia to respect Japanese laws, can you? Probably 90% don't even know Japanese, let alone live in Japan. The same goes for French and every other one, though the percentages will obviously vary.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com wrote:
2011/3/4 Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com:
2011/3/4 Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com: (...)
(3) For example Spanish copyright law article 14 "derechos irrenunciables e inalienables (...) Exigir el reconocimiento de su condición de autor de la obra"
http://civil.udg.es/normacivil/estatal/reals/Lpi.html
They are also provided an international recognition in the Berne Convention Article 6bis : "Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation."
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726
See also the Japanese copyright law article 19 "the author shall have the right to determine whether his true name or pseudonym should be indicated or not, as the name of the author, on the original of his work or when his work is offered to or made available to the public. The author shall have the same right with respect to the indication of his name when works derived form his work are offered to or made available to the public"
http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/cl2_1.html#cl2_1+SS2
coupled together with article 59 "Moral rights of the author shall be exclusively personal to him and inalienable." Inalienable means they can't be either sold or waived.": incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred " http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable
http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/cl2_2.html#cl2_2+S5
So it is not just a crazy French or European thing. How can so many countries' legislatures be wrong ?
Until the 2009 license change, there was a narrow path with GFDL, enabling to build Wikipedia in each country without breaking too many laws (1). But with the 2009 license change, WMF is behaving like a bull in a china shop.
(1) Even if you did everything right with Moral Rights, the French law is still broken in a couple of places. But this is not a scoop. Remember what Lawrence Lessig said about German law in http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Quarto/2/En-5
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This thread is at a bit too theoretical a plane for me to follow in detail. (As it happens, I'm a lawyer, but of course not a French lawyer.) Can someone give a specific instance (theoretical or historical) where the assertion of droit moral as applied to wiki content beyond what is expressly preserved in the license would actually come up as a practical matter? In my experience, most assertions on-wiki of moral rights have been in the context of editing disputes, but I know there is a deeper philosophical and legal issue involved here than occasional passing legal threats.
FWIW, there is some discussion of a related issue in an arbitration decision I wrote (RfAr/Alastair Haines 2). Basically, what we said was that submitting one's work to Wikipedia, by the very nature of our collaborative editing process, means that one is surrendering the ability to preserve the work intact to a greater extent than by submitting it elsewhere. If one believes it's important that one's writing be presented as submitted, without change, then Wikipedia is not the right forum for it, regardless of the merits of the content.
Newyorkbrad
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Arlen Beiler arlenbee@gmail.com wrote:
Next thing these people will shutdown wikipedia because the french law says impre*scriptible*, and they will say that because wikipedia uses JS and so is scriptable, it shouldn't be around. What don't you like about the licence anyway? It is my opinion that the laws of the most influentual country apply on the wiki served by it. You can't expect English Wikipedia to respect Japanese laws, can you? Probably 90% don't even know Japanese, let alone live in Japan. The same goes for French and every other one, though the percentages will obviously vary.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com wrote:
2011/3/4 Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com:
2011/3/4 Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com: (...)
(3) For example Spanish copyright law article 14 "derechos irrenunciables e inalienables (...) Exigir el reconocimiento de su condición de autor de la obra"
http://civil.udg.es/normacivil/estatal/reals/Lpi.html
They are also provided an international recognition in the Berne Convention Article 6bis : "Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation."
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726
See also the Japanese copyright law article 19 "the author shall have the right to determine whether his true name or pseudonym should be indicated or not, as the name of the author, on the original of his work or when his work is offered to or made available to the public. The author shall have the same right with respect to the indication of his name when works derived form his work are offered to or made available to the public"
http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/cl2_1.html#cl2_1+SS2
coupled together with article 59 "Moral rights of the author shall be exclusively personal to him and inalienable." Inalienable means they can't be either sold or waived.": incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred " http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable
http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/cl2_2.html#cl2_2+S5
So it is not just a crazy French or European thing. How can so many countries' legislatures be wrong ?
Until the 2009 license change, there was a narrow path with GFDL, enabling to build Wikipedia in each country without breaking too many laws (1). But with the 2009 license change, WMF is behaving like a bull in a china shop.
(1) Even if you did everything right with Moral Rights, the French law is still broken in a couple of places. But this is not a scoop. Remember what Lawrence Lessig said about German law in http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Quarto/2/En-5
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
----- Original Message ----
From: Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, March 4, 2011 5:05:11 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Moral rights
2011/2/27 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
No one wants to attack French moral rights, or the attack the idiosyncrasies
of
any particular legal jurisdiction. What we want to do is curate a large international collection of free content that will remain free content 300
years
from now after all of us are dead and can no longer be personally vigilant regarding those who might try to restrict the descendants of our collected content from others. What is it that you want to do?
Birgitte SB
No one ? I would not say so. I would rather say that 75.8% (1) want to attack moral rights, which are not French only (3), and, as I showed in my previous mail, are a value taken into account in Wikimedia projects in such documents as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_en... s
It might have become a core value of the Wikimedia communities. But if community leaders lead the community into the wrong way... you end up with a 75.8 majority going into the wrong way.
It is not reasonable to believe the underlying desire there is to make an attack French moral rights. Please try to be accurate and stop making such spurious accusations.
Birgitte SB
2011/3/4 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
----- Original Message ----
From: Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, March 4, 2011 5:05:11 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Moral rights
2011/2/27 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
No one wants to attack French moral rights, or the attack the idiosyncrasies
of
any particular legal jurisdiction. What we want to do is curate a large international collection of free content that will remain free content 300
years
from now after all of us are dead and can no longer be personally vigilant regarding those who might try to restrict the descendants of our collected content from others. What is it that you want to do?
Birgitte SB
No one ? I would not say so. I would rather say that 75.8% (1) want to attack moral rights, which are not French only (3), and, as I showed in my previous mail, are a value taken into account in Wikimedia projects in such documents as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_en... s
It might have become a core value of the Wikimedia communities. But if community leaders lead the community into the wrong way... you end up with a 75.8 majority going into the wrong way.
It is not reasonable to believe the underlying desire there is to make an attack French moral rights. Please try to be accurate and stop making such spurious accusations.
Birgitte SB
A vote is an expression of will. If people are so confused in their heads that their vote does not reflect what they want, it is a problem.
Indeed. It always starts with the finer details of CC 3.0. and it may well end in genocide.
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com wrote:
French authorship rights law:
Article L121-1 An author shall enjoy the right to respect for his name, his authorship and his work. This right shall attach to his person. It shall be perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible. It may be transmitted mortis causa to the heirs of the author. Exercise may be conferred on another person under the provisions of a will.
http://195.83.177.9/code/liste.phtml?lang=uk&c=36&r=2497
"perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible" means that they cannot be waived. It also means that they are enshrined in French law as dearly as human rights.
In my opinion, the people who want to attack this, are on a sloppery slope where the next step is when they request you to waive your human rights.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Moral rights is one of the core values which used to be defended at least in the past, at least by a few community members. Things are changing so quickly these days that I can be sure of nothing, but it seems to be still the case today as shown on
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_en...
with wording such as "retain the right to be attributed" and "I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights" (personnality rights might be something a little different from authorship's moral rights, but the respect of personality rights is also a way of showing respect to universal human dignity)
It is even more clear with the French version of that template at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Messages_type
with the wording "je suis conscient de toujours jouir des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur mon œuvre" which is synonymous with "I don't waive the moral rights I own on my work".
In particular, I remember the following talk we had on the French village pump where we discussed whether it was cruel to require people to agree with the Declaration of consent for all enquiries, with some people expressing that what we are asking them to agree with is too harsh, some of them ending up not wanting to agree to more than a NC (Non Commercial) license : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bistro/archives/avril_2009#Autoris...
My view is that with a standard GFDL 1.2 or CC-BY-SA 1.0 there is a middle ground with some rights waived and some rights reserved, even if they allow commercial use.
I think it is important to convey throughout the reuse chain the feeling that the reusers are grateful to the content creator for having created the content. And that gratefulness or recognition (that someone did a good work, or an average work, but in all events, a work good enough for reuse) is expressed by attribution.
There is also another line of doctrine which says that attribution is a tribute, which is the symbolic price paid for the work by the reuser. Under that doctrine, a free work would no longer be called a "free as free beer" work, but a symbolically paid work. A long time ago, people used to pay works with wikimoney. It may look a bit childish, or a waste of time, but I think the symbolic message of wikimoney is great : http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:WikiMonnaie&old... . Is conveying gratefulness feelings to other human beings a waste of time ?
I think reusers should keep in their minds that the wikimoney is the attribution. If you attribute the work correctly and follow all the other license's requirements (like adding a link to the legal code on the creativecommons.org website) you are symbolically paying some wikimoney for the work.
But I think it is not possible to promote such values and at the same time be friends with the people who create and promote the CC Zero license.
I think it is extremely embarassing to see the Creative Commons website promote CC Zero for the Open Clip Art library. What wrong have SVG graphic designers done to be treated in such a harsh way ? Enabling anybody to build upon their work with no duty to share alike ? Enabling anybody to reuse their work without crediting them ? Why isn't there anybody defending them ? Don't they deserve that minimal symbolic payment that is attribution ?
Are they such under-citizens that they don't even deserve the minimal rights ?
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_use_for_data#Open_Clip_Art_Library
I also think it is difficult to be friends with Open Street View, given the so strange way they use a creative commons attribution license. Attribution means providing the name that identifies the creator personally. Writing the sentence "Individual OSM mappers do not request a credit over and above that to “OpenStreetMap contributors” " is an act of dehumanization. They don't actually request this. They are compelled to choose between agreeing with this harsh treatment or not participate at all. They are never asked what they really want, if they would like to be personally attributed or not. And they are never taught that as a human being they deserve that minimal recognition feeling which is attribution.
If you don't teach people that they have rights, they will never be able to be strong and defend themselves.
So there is a big need to educate people that as content creators, they have the right to be attributed.
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com wrote:
In my opinion, the people who want to attack this, are on a sloppery slope where the next step is when they request you to waive your human rights.
Are you quite serious?
--vvv
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org