Supporters of broad use of PD-art outside of the U.S. have seized on a statement by Erik Möller that, "To put it plainly, WMF's position has always been that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain." and called it the "position of the WMF" (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#The_pos...) and "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation" (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-art).
In my opinion, this is mistaken on many levels. Regardless of his intentions, Erik Möller does not have the authority to speak for the WMF. If the board does /intend/ to make this statement, a binding resolution would be a much better means.
This choice of interpretation involves deliberately ignoring the current legal climate in certain countries outside the U.S., and I believe that is a significant departure at Commons.
I am asking the board to step in and provide clarity on this issue in particular, and the ways they will and will not communicate their views on important issues in general.
Matt Flaschen
Matthew Flaschen wrote:
Supporters of broad use of PD-art outside of the U.S. have seized on a statement by Erik Möller that, "To put it plainly, WMF's position has always been that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain." and called it the "position of the WMF" (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#The_pos...) and "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation" (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-art).
In my opinion, this is mistaken on many levels. Regardless of his intentions, Erik Möller does not have the authority to speak for the WMF. If the board does /intend/ to make this statement, a binding resolution would be a much better means.
This choice of interpretation involves deliberately ignoring the current legal climate in certain countries outside the U.S., and I believe that is a significant departure at Commons.
I am asking the board to step in and provide clarity on this issue in particular, and the ways they will and will not communicate their views on important issues in general.
Matt Flaschen
Not to put a too fine point on it; yes, the concept of Public Domain has no I mean *no* protection outside the jurisdictions where it is defined...
And my country, sadly is one of those who have these "moral rights" etc. which are much stronger.
Which is *not* to say that clarifying what are "secondary rights" or "rights by familiarity" are rights in opposition copyright provisions, which is the inference that one might draw from what Erik in error wrote.
Copyright is one thing that many think is a minimum, but in actual fact many countries are well more comprehensive.
And likewise, Erik Möller, or me, have no actual ways of saying yes, we want to relax one or the other side of national legislature in terms to make it in tune with our personal ideology. Erik, you are well advised to not even try.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen.
In my opinion, this is mistaken on many levels. Regardless of his intentions, Erik Möller does not have the authority to speak for the WMF. If the board does /intend/ to make this statement, a binding resolution would be a much better means.
I disagree, as a senior member of the foundation (either as a board member or as Vice-ED or whatever his current title is now - I'm not sure when the statement was made), he can certainly act as spokesperson for the foundation. If what he said doesn't fit the foundation's official position then it's an matter for internal disciplinary procedures, but I've seen nothing to suggest he was incorrect.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
In my opinion, this is mistaken on many levels. Regardless of his intentions, Erik Möller does not have the authority to speak for the WMF. If the board does /intend/ to make this statement, a binding resolution would be a much better means.
I disagree, as a senior member of the foundation (either as a board member or as Vice-ED or whatever his current title is now - I'm not sure when the statement was made), he can certainly act as spokesperson for the foundation. If what he said doesn't fit the foundation's official position then it's an matter for internal disciplinary procedures, but I've seen nothing to suggest he was incorrect.
For the sake of clarity, the statement being discussed is from July 2008, when Erik would already be Deputy Director.
-Robert Rohde
Among the benefits of have organized Commons in the US, is that we can go by US copyright law. The alternative would be for Commons to adopt the most restrictive position of any country whatsoever. Given the expansive meanings of "moral rights", and the impossibility in some countries of surrendering them, this might make such a project impossible. As obvious, I am not a lawyer , and I tend to write the way I hope things will be.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
In my opinion, this is mistaken on many levels. Regardless of his intentions, Erik Möller does not have the authority to speak for the WMF. If the board does /intend/ to make this statement, a binding resolution would be a much better means.
I disagree, as a senior member of the foundation (either as a board member or as Vice-ED or whatever his current title is now - I'm not sure when the statement was made), he can certainly act as spokesperson for the foundation. If what he said doesn't fit the foundation's official position then it's an matter for internal disciplinary procedures, but I've seen nothing to suggest he was incorrect.
For the sake of clarity, the statement being discussed is from July 2008, when Erik would already be Deputy Director.
-Robert Rohde _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[[Principality of Sealand]], anyone?
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:37 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Among the benefits of have organized Commons in the US, is that we can go by US copyright law. The alternative would be for Commons to adopt the most restrictive position of any country whatsoever. Given the expansive meanings of "moral rights", and the impossibility in some countries of surrendering them, this might make such a project impossible. As obvious, I am not a lawyer , and I tend to write the way I hope things will be.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
In my opinion, this is mistaken on many levels. Regardless of his intentions, Erik Möller does not have the authority to speak for the WMF. If the board does /intend/ to make this statement, a binding resolution would be a much better means.
I disagree, as a senior member of the foundation (either as a board member or as Vice-ED or whatever his current title is now - I'm not sure when the statement was made), he can certainly act as spokesperson for the foundation. If what he said doesn't fit the foundation's official position then it's an matter for internal disciplinary procedures, but I've seen nothing to suggest he was incorrect.
For the sake of clarity, the statement being discussed is from July 2008, when Erik would already be Deputy Director.
-Robert Rohde _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
David Goodman wrote:
Among the benefits of have organized Commons in the US, is that we can go by US copyright law. The alternative would be for Commons to adopt the most restrictive position of any country whatsoever.
That is not the only alternative. Commons:Licensing (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing) states, "that are in the public domain in at least the United States *and* in the source country of the work." However, this change to PD-art policy is a significant departure from that.
Matt Flaschen
Matthew Flaschen wrote:
That is not the only alternative. Commons:Licensing (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing) states, "that are in the public domain in at least the United States *and* in the source country of the work." However, this change to PD-art policy is a significant departure from that.
As have been a few others before. The rule you quote above has some established exceptions, PD-art is just one of them.
Ciao Henning
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
Matthew Flaschen wrote:
That is not the only alternative. Commons:Licensing (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing) states, "that are in the public domain in at least the United States *and* in the source country of the work." However, this change to PD-art policy is a significant departure from that.
As have been a few others before. The rule you quote above has some established exceptions, PD-art is just one of them.
Such as? Even assuming you are correct, we can still choose not to make any more exceptions.
Matt Flaschen
Matthew Flaschen wrote:
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
Matthew Flaschen wrote:
That is not the only alternative. Commons:Licensing (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing) states, "that are in the public domain in at least the United States *and* in the source country of the work." However, this change to PD-art policy is a significant departure from that.
As have been a few others before. The rule you quote above has some established exceptions, PD-art is just one of them.
Such as? Even assuming you are correct, we can still choose not to make any more exceptions.
My other posting went to commons-l. Copied from there:
-----
For example: The King James Bible enjoys a perpetual copyright in the UK. Only four printers are licensed to print copies and they pay (small) royalties. We host a copy of the KJB on wikisource none the less.
Greece has a very questionable provision in the copyright law, under which the state claims copyright (!) for each and every antiquities from the Greek history. We happily ignore that and show excavations, works of art, historic weapons and the like.
Italy has a similar provision regarding works of art in state-run museums. We ignore that as well.
-----
Ciao Henning
Which law is valid for Wikipedia? Floridan? Ziko
2008/8/21 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net:
Matthew Flaschen wrote:
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
Matthew Flaschen wrote:
That is not the only alternative. Commons:Licensing (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing) states, "that are in the public domain in at least the United States *and* in the source country of the work." However, this change to PD-art policy is a significant departure from that.
As have been a few others before. The rule you quote above has some established exceptions, PD-art is just one of them.
Such as? Even assuming you are correct, we can still choose not to make any more exceptions.
My other posting went to commons-l. Copied from there:
For example: The King James Bible enjoys a perpetual copyright in the UK. Only four printers are licensed to print copies and they pay (small) royalties. We host a copy of the KJB on wikisource none the less.
Greece has a very questionable provision in the copyright law, under which the state claims copyright (!) for each and every antiquities from the Greek history. We happily ignore that and show excavations, works of art, historic weapons and the like.
Italy has a similar provision regarding works of art in state-run museums. We ignore that as well.
Ciao Henning
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Besides the law for where the servers are, you always have to abide the law yourself :) If it is not allowed in The Netherlands to do something, I doubt you can just do it here, because it is on US servers :) So, multiple laws I guess.
Lodewijk
2008/8/21 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com:
Which law is valid for Wikipedia? Floridan? Ziko
2008/8/21 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net:
Matthew Flaschen wrote:
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
Matthew Flaschen wrote:
That is not the only alternative. Commons:Licensing (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing) states, "that are in the public domain in at least the United States *and* in the source country of the work." However, this change to PD-art policy is a significant departure from that.
As have been a few others before. The rule you quote above has some established exceptions, PD-art is just one of them.
Such as? Even assuming you are correct, we can still choose not to make any more exceptions.
My other posting went to commons-l. Copied from there:
For example: The King James Bible enjoys a perpetual copyright in the UK. Only four printers are licensed to print copies and they pay (small) royalties. We host a copy of the KJB on wikisource none the less.
Greece has a very questionable provision in the copyright law, under which the state claims copyright (!) for each and every antiquities from the Greek history. We happily ignore that and show excavations, works of art, historic weapons and the like.
Italy has a similar provision regarding works of art in state-run museums. We ignore that as well.
Ciao Henning
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:54 AM, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Besides the law for where the servers are, you always have to abide the law yourself :) If it is not allowed in The Netherlands to do something, I doubt you can just do it here, because it is on US servers :) So, multiple laws I guess.
There's also a difference between the users of content, and the reusers of content. If you take something that is illegal in your country and try to reuse it, publish it, sell it, you're going to get in trouble no matter where our servers are located. I doubt there are going to be too many problems for our casual readers, how much trouble can you get in for reading a webpage which contains images that are illegally licensed?
When some country tries to sue the WMF over these infractions, the location of the servers is going to be a much more important issue.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Henning Schlottmann <h.schlottmann@gmx.net
wrote:
Italy has a similar provision regarding works of art in state-run museums. We ignore that as well.
..and the Italian wikipedia finds itself in the awkward position of not
being able to use "free" material hosted on commons (the governing body of the museums in Florence sent us a takedown notice some time ago) Cruccone
Marco Chiesa wrote:
..and the Italian wikipedia finds itself in the awkward position of not being able to use "free" material hosted on commons (the governing body of the museums in Florence sent us a takedown notice some time ago)
If a takedown notice is sent in Italy, and the publisher refuses, and the case goes to court, and the court finds that the copyright claim was without substance, is there any punishment for the false claim of copyright?
As far as I know, false copyright claims (also called copyfraud) is not a crime in Sweden, so museums can send takedown notices at will, at no legal risk to themselves.
Marco Chiesa wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Henning Schlottmann <h.schlottmann@gmx.net
wrote:
Italy has a similar provision regarding works of art in state-run museums. We ignore that as well.
..and the Italian wikipedia finds itself in the awkward position of not being able to use "free" material hosted on commons (the governing body of the museums in Florence sent us a takedown notice some time ago)
Who received that take-down-notice? Individual editors? The uploader of images? The Italian chapter? The designated agent of the Foundation according to the DMCA-notice?
Ciao Henning
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.netwrote:
Who received that take-down-notice? Individual editors? The uploader of images? The Italian chapter? The designated agent of the Foundation according to the DMCA-notice?
The Italian language OTRS
Cruccone
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
For example: The King James Bible enjoys a perpetual copyright in the UK. Only four printers are licensed to print copies and they pay (small) royalties. We host a copy of the KJB on wikisource none the less.
That has to do with dubious copyright policy at Wikisource (which I know is even more lax than this), not Commons.
Greece has a very questionable provision in the copyright law, under which the state claims copyright (!) for each and every antiquities from the Greek history. We happily ignore that and show excavations, works of art, historic weapons and the like.
Italy has a similar provision regarding works of art in state-run museums. We ignore that as well.
Neither of these are anywhere near as broad as the PD-art issue.
Matt Flaschen
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu wrote:
Erik Möller does not have the authority to speak for the WMF.
Yes he does.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Matthew Flaschen < matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu> wrote:
Supporters of broad use of PD-art outside of the U.S. have seized on a statement by Erik Möller that, "To put it plainly, WMF's position has always been that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain." and called it the "position of the WMF" ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#The_pos... ) and "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation" (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-art).
In my opinion, this is mistaken on many levels. Regardless of his intentions, Erik Möller does not have the authority to speak for the WMF. If the board does /intend/ to make this statement, a binding resolution would be a much better means.
This choice of interpretation involves deliberately ignoring the current legal climate in certain countries outside the U.S., and I believe that is a significant departure at Commons.
I am asking the board to step in and provide clarity on this issue in particular, and the ways they will and will not communicate their views on important issues in general.
Adding commons-l as a CC as this clearly involves the commons community, and should have included that CC to start. Lets all try to include commons-l on future replies.
Erik is deputy director, and he, Sue, Mike Godwin or the board itself I believe is entitled to make such a statement. Are you simply asking for the board to endorse or not endorse it?
- Joe
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Matthew Flaschen < matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu> wrote:
Supporters of broad use of PD-art outside of the U.S. have seized on a statement by Erik Möller that, "To put it plainly, WMF's position has always been that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain." and called it the "position of the WMF" (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#The_pos...
) and "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation" (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-art).
In my opinion, this is mistaken on many levels. Regardless of his intentions, Erik Möller does not have the authority to speak for the WMF. If the board does /intend/ to make this statement, a binding resolution would be a much better means.
This choice of interpretation involves deliberately ignoring the current legal climate in certain countries outside the U.S., and I believe that is a significant departure at Commons.
I am asking the board to step in and provide clarity on this issue in particular, and the ways they will and will not communicate their views on important issues in general.
Adding commons-l as a CC as this clearly involves the commons community, and should have included that CC to start. Lets all try to include commons-l on future replies.
Erik is deputy director, and he, Sue, Mike Godwin or the board itself I believe is entitled to make such a statement. Are you simply asking for the board to endorse or not endorse it?
- Joe
Back in 2004, Jimmy Wales has stated:
*I officially pronounce that as of June 30, 2004, content which we are using _solely_ by virtue of non-free licenses should be removed from Wikipedia.*[1]
In 2007, a resolution regarding it has announced: http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution:Licensing_policy...
So, yes, there is a need to an official statement. Erik and Mike have given theirs *opinions*. If Wikimedia Foundation doesn't need to have official statements regarding subjects like this, the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't need to have a Board of Trustees (since everyone can assert anything) and hundreds of volunteers don't need to waste your time translating gazillions of pages related to the Board elections expecting that the Foundation never given controversial rulings that can broke copyleft things in some contries.
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-April/012156.html
Back in 2004, Jimmy Wales has stated:
*I officially pronounce that as of June 30, 2004, content which we are using _solely_ by virtue of non-free licenses should be removed from Wikipedia.*[1]
In 2007, a resolution regarding it has announced: http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution:Licensing_policy...
Well, that didn't happen and there is no consensus for it. The fact that the board passed a resolution regarding the use of non-free content shows that that pronouncement is outdated.
So, yes, there is a need to an official statement. Erik and Mike have given theirs *opinions*.
No, Erik gave an official statement. He clearly stated that he was speaking on behalf of the WMF. If he wasn't authorised to do so, then his boss, Sue, will take the necessary action (I'm sure she's aware of the statement, she's on this mailing list). The fact that neither she nor the board have made a statement to the contrary strongly suggests that Erik's statement was, indeed, officially authorised and, absent of any reason to believe otherwise, we should accept it as such.
Why do people have a problem with the Deputy Executive Director making official statements? It seems a perfectly reasonable part of his job.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Back in 2004, Jimmy Wales has stated:
*I officially pronounce that as of June 30, 2004, content which we are using _solely_ by virtue of non-free licenses should be removed from Wikipedia.*[1]
In 2007, a resolution regarding it has announced: http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution:Licensing_policy...
Well, that didn't happen and there is no consensus for it. The fact that the board passed a resolution regarding the use of non-free content shows that that pronouncement is outdated.
He said _solely_ by virtue of non-free licenses (like Template:Permission or Template:Noncommercial). Fair use was still meant to be allowed.
Matt Flaschen
2008/8/21 Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com:
So, yes, there is a need to an official statement. Erik and Mike have given theirs *opinions*.
There are three separate questions here:
1) Does hosting these images put the WMF in legal danger? Mike has weighed in on this, and said that based on the record so far, there is no reason to assume that this is the case. If you want to know if something should be deleted to protect WMF from harm, Mike is the person to ask. He has been asked and has answered.
2) Does WMF's licensing policy require Commons to delete these images to remain free-as-in-freedom? Our organizational response has always been "no", dating back to Jimmy's first public statements on the matter years ago, our response to demands to remove PD-Art images, etc. I co-authored both the licensing policy and the Definition of Free Cultural Works it refers to; I believe I can safely say that neither of these documents was intended to suggest deletion of PD-Art images.
3) Is the Commons community free to decide that, in spite of 1) and 2), it wants to delete some PD-Art images in order to be maximally free-as-in-freedom? As far as I can tell, the answer is "yes", in the absence of an explicit Board-level policy statement on PD-Art images. None of my or Mike's comments was intended to suggest otherwise.
I hope that clarifies the situation.
Erik Moeller wrote:
2008/8/21 Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com:
So, yes, there is a need to an official statement. Erik and Mike have given theirs *opinions*.
There are three separate questions here:
- Does hosting these images put the WMF in legal danger? Mike has
weighed in on this, and said that based on the record so far, there is no reason to assume that this is the case. If you want to know if something should be deleted to protect WMF from harm, Mike is the person to ask. He has been asked and has answered.
- Does WMF's licensing policy require Commons to delete these images
to remain free-as-in-freedom? Our organizational response has always been "no", dating back to Jimmy's first public statements on the matter years ago, our response to demands to remove PD-Art images, etc. I co-authored both the licensing policy and the Definition of Free Cultural Works it refers to; I believe I can safely say that neither of these documents was intended to suggest deletion of PD-Art images.
I agree that these are the issues, and I still believe the board ought to explicitly state its opinion on #1 and #2.
Matt Flaschen
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2008/8/21 Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com:
So, yes, there is a need to an official statement. Erik and Mike have
given
theirs *opinions*.
There are three separate questions here:
- Does hosting these images put the WMF in legal danger? Mike has
weighed in on this, and said that based on the record so far, there is no reason to assume that this is the case. If you want to know if something should be deleted to protect WMF from harm, Mike is the person to ask. He has been asked and has answered.
Sueing the WMF for publishing online photos of old work of arts may be
counterproductive for the copyright owner (at the end of the day if I see a picture on Wikipedia I may just be tempted to go the museum and see the real thing paying the ticket); however, I'm concerned that a bona fide reuser, who has seen the PD tag on commons, may be sued. Cruccone
Hello,
*I officially pronounce that as of June 30, 2004, content which we are using _solely_ by virtue of non-free licenses should be removed from Wikipedia.*[1]
Well, back in 2005 Frankfurt Wikimania's "free culture manifesto", Jimmy supported use of PD-art :) ""I wouldn't encourage you to break the law, but if you accidentally take a photo of these works it would be great to put it on Wikipedia for the public domain."
Please allow me to state my individual opinion, as otherwise we'd have to hold an emergency meeting to provide a board-level answer to these questions.
Generally, Foundation allows communities to decide, providing legal boundaries, within which it supports the projects, and of course - guidance, along the values.
In this case, Foundation has the interpretation of what is PD, and can allow more flexible, Florida-centric evaluation of PD. Narrower PD interpretations are up for community.
So, yes, there is a need to an official statement. Erik and Mike have given theirs *opinions*.
Is the need for an official statement your opinion or official statement? Both Mike and Erik are responsible employees of Foundation, and they definitely have capacity to discuss with community and provide guidelines.
If Wikimedia Foundation doesn't need to have official statements regarding subjects like this, the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't need to have a Board of Trustees (since everyone can assert anything)
Or rather, look at it the other way. As Wikimedia Foundation has employees doing the job, Board of Trustees can limit the participation in actual execution of mission.
and hundreds of volunteers don't need to waste your time translating gazillions of pages related to the Board elections expecting that the Foundation never given controversial rulings that can broke copyleft things in some contries.
I honor any volunteerism, and everyone's choice to spend whatever effort they think is necessary.
You seem to believe that Foundation should have authority to rule the community. Actually, Foundation is supporting the community, and BoT is having authority over Foundation.
By electing members to BoT, you chose someone who supports you, not rules you.
If you feel that Foundation may not be able to support you, if it chose to be more flexible regarding PD interpretations, let us know, and we will discuss that in next meeting. If you feel that Foundation should be actually restricting the community, so our values are better preserved, we can probably do that too, if that is really needed, though I'd really really like to trust community with that.
Personally, I want to be able to spread more information, rather than less. I'd like others to be able to spread more information too. Thats what we're doing, right?
In perfect universe we may team up with other organizations and do impact litigation and impact education, and teach the world that freeing up the content is good. Well, ok, in perfect universe we wouldn't even have to do that :)
Domas Mituzas wrote:
Hello,
*I officially pronounce that as of June 30, 2004, content which we are using _solely_ by virtue of non-free licenses should be removed from Wikipedia.*[1]
Well, back in 2005 Frankfurt Wikimania's "free culture manifesto", Jimmy supported use of PD-art :) ""I wouldn't encourage you to break the law, but if you accidentally take a photo of these works it would be great to put it on Wikipedia for the public domain."
Please allow me to state my individual opinion, as otherwise we'd have to hold an emergency meeting to provide a board-level answer to these questions.
I certainly am not asking for an emergency meeting, only that it be addressed at the next regular meeting.
If you feel that Foundation may not be able to support you, if it chose to be more flexible regarding PD interpretations, let us know, and we will discuss that in next meeting. If you feel that Foundation should be actually restricting the community, so our values are better preserved, we can probably do that too, if that is really needed, though I'd really really like to trust community with that.
I do generally trust the community with that, but I am noticing a long-term slide on Commons towards ignoring laws that are not convenient.
Personally, I want to be able to spread more information, rather than less. I'd like others to be able to spread more information too. Thats what we're doing, right?
I always thought we were spreading as much /free/ information as possible.
Matt Flaschen
--- On Sat, 8/23/08, Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu wrote:
From: Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] PD-art and official "position of the WMF" To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Saturday, August 23, 2008, 3:00 PM Domas Mituzas wrote:
Hello,
*I officially pronounce that as of June 30, 2004,
content which we are
using _solely_ by virtue of non-free licenses
should be removed from
Wikipedia.*[1]
Well, back in 2005 Frankfurt Wikimania's
"free culture manifesto",
Jimmy supported use of PD-art :) ""I wouldn't encourage you to break the
law, but if you accidentally
take a photo of these works it would be great to put
it on Wikipedia
for the public domain."
Please allow me to state my individual opinion, as
otherwise we'd have
to hold an emergency meeting to provide a board-level
answer to these
questions.
I certainly am not asking for an emergency meeting, only that it be addressed at the next regular meeting.
And afterwards are you and your opponents promising to never asking for a review when the make-up of the board changes hoping to get the answer you like better? Seriously the problem in your community cannot be solved at a board meeting. Appeals to authority aren't the answer here. Commons needs to work out it out. This is not going to be the last questionable area of copyright law and it is no different than the others.
Birgitte SB
Thank you for your insightful comments Domas.
Ant
Domas Mituzas wrote:
Hello,
*I officially pronounce that as of June 30, 2004, content which we are using _solely_ by virtue of non-free licenses should be removed from Wikipedia.*[1]
Well, back in 2005 Frankfurt Wikimania's "free culture manifesto", Jimmy supported use of PD-art :) ""I wouldn't encourage you to break the law, but if you accidentally take a photo of these works it would be great to put it on Wikipedia for the public domain."
Please allow me to state my individual opinion, as otherwise we'd have to hold an emergency meeting to provide a board-level answer to these questions.
Generally, Foundation allows communities to decide, providing legal boundaries, within which it supports the projects, and of course - guidance, along the values.
In this case, Foundation has the interpretation of what is PD, and can allow more flexible, Florida-centric evaluation of PD. Narrower PD interpretations are up for community.
So, yes, there is a need to an official statement. Erik and Mike have given theirs *opinions*.
Is the need for an official statement your opinion or official statement? Both Mike and Erik are responsible employees of Foundation, and they definitely have capacity to discuss with community and provide guidelines.
If Wikimedia Foundation doesn't need to have official statements regarding subjects like this, the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't need to have a Board of Trustees (since everyone can assert anything)
Or rather, look at it the other way. As Wikimedia Foundation has employees doing the job, Board of Trustees can limit the participation in actual execution of mission.
and hundreds of volunteers don't need to waste your time translating gazillions of pages related to the Board elections expecting that the Foundation never given controversial rulings that can broke copyleft things in some contries.
I honor any volunteerism, and everyone's choice to spend whatever effort they think is necessary.
You seem to believe that Foundation should have authority to rule the community. Actually, Foundation is supporting the community, and BoT is having authority over Foundation.
By electing members to BoT, you chose someone who supports you, not rules you.
If you feel that Foundation may not be able to support you, if it chose to be more flexible regarding PD interpretations, let us know, and we will discuss that in next meeting. If you feel that Foundation should be actually restricting the community, so our values are better preserved, we can probably do that too, if that is really needed, though I'd really really like to trust community with that.
Personally, I want to be able to spread more information, rather than less. I'd like others to be able to spread more information too. Thats what we're doing, right?
In perfect universe we may team up with other organizations and do impact litigation and impact education, and teach the world that freeing up the content is good. Well, ok, in perfect universe we wouldn't even have to do that :)
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
Adding commons-l as a CC as this clearly involves the commons community, and should have included that CC to start.
I wasn't trying to hide anything. I mentioned my initial post at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Bo...
Erik is deputy director, and he, Sue, Mike Godwin or the board itself I believe is entitled to make such a statement. Are you simply asking for the board to endorse or not endorse it?
- Joe
Yes, exactly. And I would ask that the foundation be more deliberate about important statements in the future (and this is very important).
Matt Flaschen
Matthew Flaschen wrote:
Supporters of broad use of PD-art outside of the U.S. have seized on a statement by Erik Möller that, "To put it plainly, WMF's position has always been that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain." and called it the "position of the WMF" (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#The_pos...) and "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation" (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-art).
In my opinion, this is mistaken on many levels. Regardless of his intentions, Erik Möller does not have the authority to speak for the WMF. If the board does /intend/ to make this statement, a binding resolution would be a much better means.
This choice of interpretation involves deliberately ignoring the current legal climate in certain countries outside the U.S., and I believe that is a significant departure at Commons.
I am asking the board to step in and provide clarity on this issue in particular, and the ways they will and will not communicate their views on important issues in general.
Matt Flaschen
I have no special opinion regarding the PD-art issue.
I have no idea whether Erik has the authority to make such statement in the name of the WMF on commons wiki. I do not think it really matters because in the end, if a staff member makes a statement, and the ED and board are informed (eg, on this list), and neither the board nor the ED reacts, that either mean that - Erik has that authority; - or that means that they agree with Erik statement; - or that means they have no idea/do not care and are happy to let Erik in charge of this issue. Either way, Erik statement stands. And what matters is simply to make sure that ED and Board are aware of the statement (which is probably the case now as I expect ED and at least one board member read that list).
However, what bothers me a bit is that when the board is *asked* several times to step in, I expect the board to publicly react and say something. I do not really care what they could say (option 1: Erik has that authority; option 2: board agrees with Erik; option 3: the board is happy to refer to Erik on such issues). But I expect a reaction.
Lack of reaction could imply - that the board is not aware of the issue (---> if so, we need a mean to make sure the board hears community member) - that the board has no idea how to react (---> if so, change the board)
Ant
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org