David Strauss wrote:
The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.
I'm well aware of this. That's why basically I asked that WMF states clearly which kind of contents are allowed on Wikimedia projects. This should be uniform on all projects and should not be left to decision of the various communities.
And if NC's won't be allowed on the basis that everyone should be able to reuse commercially the content "as is", I'm telling you that this have to be true everywhere. And if this has to be true for everyone, everywere, fair use poses the same kind of problems as NC's.
Roberto (Snowdog)
------------------------------------------------------ Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom http://click.libero.it/infostrada15gen07
The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.
I politely disagree. When the person doing something has the Italian nationality, and the person commits the act from italian territory, and the claiment is italian, an italian judge might well decide to consider the claim, despite the servers being in the us.
teun spaans wrote:
The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.
I politely disagree. When the person doing something has the Italian nationality, and the person commits the act from italian territory, and the claiment is italian, an italian judge might well decide to consider the claim, despite the servers being in the us.
Please read the following two paragraphs from that post; they directly address your objection:
"There seems to be a plausible argument that Italian citizens cannot upload normally copyrighted material under the fair use exception. But there's a huge difference between what the Italian Wikipedia can host and what Italian citizens may post to it.
"And if you think that you can fix the problem by making the Italian Wikipedia have policies that fit within Italian law, what about Italians who edit the English or other Wikipedias? They're not suddenly exempt from Italian law because they're working in another language."
David,
how should that answer my objections?
teun
On 1/15/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
teun spaans wrote:
The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.
I politely disagree. When the person doing something has the Italian nationality, and the person commits the act from italian territory, and the claiment is italian, an italian judge might well decide to consider the claim, despite the servers being in the us.
Please read the following two paragraphs from that post; they directly address your objection:
"There seems to be a plausible argument that Italian citizens cannot upload normally copyrighted material under the fair use exception. But there's a huge difference between what the Italian Wikipedia can host and what Italian citizens may post to it.
"And if you think that you can fix the problem by making the Italian Wikipedia have policies that fit within Italian law, what about Italians who edit the English or other Wikipedias? They're not suddenly exempt from Italian law because they're working in another language."
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
You said: "...and the person commits the act from italian territory, and the claiment is italian, an italian judge might well decide to consider the claim..."
I said in my earlier post: "But there's a huge difference between what the Italian Wikipedia can host and what Italian citizens may post to it."
You're not recognizing that difference. You are treating the Italian Wikipedia as if it has an exclusive relationship to people in Italy. Not only do people in Italy edit other Wikipedias in abundance, people outside Italy edit the Italian Wikipedia.
Now, I've personally tinkered around on the German Wikipedia. It makes little sense to have my edits confined by policies assuming German authorship. I'm a U.S. citizen publishing information to a U.S.-hosted site. People in Germany may be the primary readers, but plenty of Germans read the English Wikipedia, too.
Likewise, many people in Germany edit the English Wikipedia. If the German Wikipedia is the only place where policy considers the needs of German editors, German editors of the English Wikipedia may be at risk.
Policies involving legal concepts need to be separated from languages.
teun spaans wrote:
David,
how should that answer my objections?
teun
On 1/15/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
teun spaans wrote:
The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.
I politely disagree. When the person doing something has the Italian nationality, and the person commits the act from italian territory, and the claiment is italian, an italian judge might well decide to consider the claim, despite the servers being in the us.
Please read the following two paragraphs from that post; they directly address your objection:
"There seems to be a plausible argument that Italian citizens cannot upload normally copyrighted material under the fair use exception. But there's a huge difference between what the Italian Wikipedia can host and what Italian citizens may post to it.
"And if you think that you can fix the problem by making the Italian Wikipedia have policies that fit within Italian law, what about Italians who edit the English or other Wikipedias? They're not suddenly exempt from Italian law because they're working in another language."
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I do recognise that there is a difference between the italian wikipedia and the what italian citizens are allowed to post to it.
You as a US citizen, working from the US, may write in italian on the itialian wiki.
All I say is that there migh well be a difference for Italians working on the italian wiki, doing so from italian territory. We may say on every page that we are only bound by florida law because the foundation is registered in florida and the servers are hosted there. But an italian judge may very well decide to disagree, especially if the claiment is also italian, and the readers are likely to be in italy as well. He may decide to take up a case, and the italian volunteer might be sued despite all our florida claims.
Your edits on the german wiki are probably safe, as you are a us citizen working from the us. Still, german justice might decide to pick you up if you should ever decide to visiti germany (not likely, though)
You do well to separate languages from nationalities. German is also spoken in Switzerland, Austria, and parts of France and Belgium. But you cannot say: Because wel claim Florida law apllies to all wiki projects, Florida law is all an italian wikipedian has to reccon with.
teun
On 1/15/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
You said: "...and the person commits the act from italian territory, and the claiment is italian, an italian judge might well decide to consider the claim..."
I said in my earlier post: "But there's a huge difference between what the Italian Wikipedia can host and what Italian citizens may post to it."
You're not recognizing that difference. You are treating the Italian Wikipedia as if it has an exclusive relationship to people in Italy. Not only do people in Italy edit other Wikipedias in abundance, people outside Italy edit the Italian Wikipedia.
Now, I've personally tinkered around on the German Wikipedia. It makes little sense to have my edits confined by policies assuming German authorship. I'm a U.S. citizen publishing information to a U.S.-hosted site. People in Germany may be the primary readers, but plenty of Germans read the English Wikipedia, too.
Likewise, many people in Germany edit the English Wikipedia. If the German Wikipedia is the only place where policy considers the needs of German editors, German editors of the English Wikipedia may be at risk.
Policies involving legal concepts need to be separated from languages.
teun spaans wrote:
David,
how should that answer my objections?
teun
On 1/15/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
teun spaans wrote:
The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.
I politely disagree. When the person doing something has the Italian nationality, and the person commits the act from italian territory, and the claiment is italian, an italian judge might well decide to consider the claim, despite the servers being in the us.
Please read the following two paragraphs from that post; they directly address your objection:
"There seems to be a plausible argument that Italian citizens cannot upload normally copyrighted material under the fair use exception. But there's a huge difference between what the Italian Wikipedia can host and what Italian citizens may post to it.
"And if you think that you can fix the problem by making the Italian Wikipedia have policies that fit within Italian law, what about Italians who edit the English or other Wikipedias? They're not suddenly exempt from Italian law because they're working in another language."
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
teun spaans wrote:
I do recognise that there is a difference between the italian wikipedia and the what italian citizens are allowed to post to it.
You as a US citizen, working from the US, may write in italian on the itialian wiki.
All I say is that there migh well be a difference for Italians working on the italian wiki, doing so from italian territory. We may say on every page that we are only bound by florida law because the foundation is registered in florida and the servers are hosted there. But an italian judge may very well decide to disagree, especially if the claiment is also italian, and the readers are likely to be in italy as well. He may decide to take up a case, and the italian volunteer might be sued despite all our florida claims.
Again, I'm not saying that we should ignore everything that doesn't apply in Florida.
Your edits on the german wiki are probably safe, as you are a us citizen working from the us. Still, german justice might decide to pick you up if you should ever decide to visiti germany (not likely, though)
While I might be more likely to escape enforcement, I don't think I'm any more protected from German law on the English Wikipedia than the German one.
You do well to separate languages from nationalities. German is also spoken in Switzerland, Austria, and parts of France and Belgium. But you cannot say: Because wel claim Florida law apllies to all wiki projects, Florida law is all an italian wikipedian has to reccon with.
And I'm not claiming that Florida law is all that applies. Though I think you're misinterpreting my arguments, I believe we agree.
Also if an italian citizien make something by (for example) Florida territory on en.wiki, the italian law have Jurisdiction.
Senpai
----- Original Message ----- From: "teun spaans" teun.spaans@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week
The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.
I politely disagree. When the person doing something has the Italian nationality, and the person commits the act from italian territory, and the claiment is italian, an italian judge might well decide to consider the claim, despite the servers being in the us.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
teun spaans wrote:
The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.
I politely disagree. When the person doing something has the Italian nationality, and the person commits the act from italian territory, and the claiment is italian, an italian judge might well decide to consider the claim, despite the servers being in the us.
"Commits the act from italian territory" is the important one. Italian nationality should not matter; if a foreigner travelling in Italy with his laptop uploads a copyvio image while he is there would he not be liable? An Italian claimant could even start a case against a foreigner in an Italian court even if that foreigner had never set foot in Italy. The judge might even convict him in absentia, but getting him to Italy to face the punishment is another matter. Similar things have happened in English courts, and the United States has refused to honour international orders on such things. Also the cost of getting him to Italy to collect a fine may be more than the fine itself.
We still need to distinguish between Italian language and Italian nationality. The language of the writing has nothing to do with this. An Italian resident writing in English is still liable, and a foreign resident writing in Italian (or a minor language of Italy) remains safe.
Ec
On 1/15/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
teun spaans wrote:
The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.
I politely disagree. When the person doing something has the Italian nationality, and the person commits the act from italian territory, and the claiment is italian, an italian judge might well decide to consider the claim, despite the servers being in the us.
"Commits the act from italian territory" is the important one. Italian nationality should not matter; if a foreigner travelling in Italy with his laptop uploads a copyvio image while he is there would he not be liable?
It is absolutely correct that he still would be liable. In theory as well as in practice. In practice the chance would also be greater that the department of justice would decide to let the matter rest, as fairly unimportant, and not worth the trouble. We shouldnt count on it, but we can keep in mind that Italians in Italy, probably the bulk of editors of the Italian wiki, should obey Italian law.
An Italian claimant could even start a case against a foreigner in an Italian court even if that foreigner had never set foot in Italy. The judge might even convict him in absentia, but getting him to Italy to face the punishment is another matter. Similar things have happened in English courts, and the United States has refused to honour international orders on such things. Also the cost of getting him to Italy to collect a fine may be more than the fine itself.
We still need to distinguish between Italian language and Italian nationality. The language of the writing has nothing to do with this. An Italian resident writing in English is still liable, and a foreign resident writing in Italian (or a minor language of Italy) remains safe.
Ec
I do not deny that there is a difference between the Italian territory or the Italian language. But I do acknowledge that for the Italian wiki the majority of the wikipedians operates from Italian territory.
So I can well imagine that an italian wikipedia will not allow fair use, solely form the reason that the Italian volunteers operating from Italy would be liable under Italian law. In court they could try to hide behind a claim that the wiki operates under Italian law, but chances that an Italian judge would buy that argument diminishes with every Italian factor (contributor, territory (most decisive), language, and so on).
On the Dutch wiki we disallowed fair use for several reasons. Being not free is one of them, and the most important of them, but the risk for wikipedia itself and for individual wikipedians also counted: Dutch citaatrecht is much more limited than fair use, and we decided to comply with both Dutch and Belgian law - the two main territories from which volunteers operate. (And yes, at that time we had volunteers in the USA, South Africa, Thailand and a number of other countries). We don't want to risk a court order to close wikipedia in the Netherlands or Belgium, and we dont want to tempt volunteers to trespass Belgian or Dutch law.
teun
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2007/1/16, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com:
It is absolutely correct that he still would be liable. In theory as well as in practice. In practice the chance would also be greater that the department of justice would decide to let the matter rest, as fairly unimportant, and not worth the trouble. We shouldnt count on it, but we can keep in mind that Italians in Italy, probably the bulk of editors of the Italian wiki, should obey Italian law.
I don't think liability of authors should be the only reason to do these things for. There's also the principle of copyleft. If we put material under GFDL that would violate other people's copyrights when published under certain non-exceptional circumstances (outside the US or for profit, to name two that are important for this thread, we may be following the letter of the GFDL in doing so, but definitely not the spirit of copyleft.
Dutch citaatrecht is much more limited than fair use, and we decided to comply with both Dutch and Belgian law (...)
I think that could be one of the main reasons for also abolishing fair use on the English Wikipedia. The main juridical difference between the two is that 'Citaatrecht' (the Dutch term for 'citation rights') is no 'right'. The term simply means that no copyright can be claimed on citations, while fair use is more a 'right' than a law (at least, as far as i know, and IANAL). Citaatrecht is a typical example of fair dealing, opposed to fair use. We do use 'citation rights' on the Dutch Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects) but only in terms of text (else the Dutch Wikiquote couldn't even exist!), but not on media (such as images) because the legal aspects of it are far more difficult than text.
The difference between the US legal system, where much more is allowed in terms of using citations of copyrighted work, and other (European) law systems seems to me to be the main reason for abolishing fair use for images and other types of media, and just restricting it to text and some small exceptions (because text citations are allowed in many more countries). If 'fair use' in the broad terms of American law would be available in many more countries it would make sense to allow it on Wikimedia projects, but at the moment it is an almost exclusively American law, and raises many problems on non-English projects.
-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]
If 'fair use' in the broad terms of American law would be available in many more countries it would make sense to allow it on Wikimedia projects, but at the moment it is an almost exclusively American law, and raises many problems on non-English projects.
Which again shows that "fair use" images are not free, applicable only on american territory, and so is again an argument to do away with fair use image on wikis in all languages, including the english language.
In another related thread it was coprrectly pointed out that there is a difference between the italian wiki and italy. I'd like to point out that there is a similar difference between the english wiki and the usa and gt britain. There is also Australia, New Zealand, Canada and India to consider, where many people have english as their primary language. Not to mention the rest of the world. :-)
teun
On 1/16/07, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
Which again shows that "fair use" images are not free, applicable only on american territory, and so is again an argument to do away with fair use image on wikis in all languages, including the english language.
That's exactly what i was trying to say. Thanks :)
-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]
teun spaans wrote:
If 'fair use' in the broad terms of American law would be available in many more countries it would make sense to allow it on Wikimedia projects, but at the moment it is an almost exclusively American law, and raises many problems on non-English projects.
Which again shows that "fair use" images are not free, applicable only on american territory, and so is again an argument to do away with fair use image on wikis in all languages, including the english language.
In another related thread it was coprrectly pointed out that there is a difference between the italian wiki and italy. I'd like to point out that there is a similar difference between the english wiki and the usa and gt britain. There is also Australia, New Zealand, Canada and India to consider, where many people have english as their primary language. Not to mention the rest of the world. :-)
Speaking for the Canadian situation I am guided by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in the ruling in CCH Canada vs. The Law Society of Upper Canada. The fair use criteria of US law (which were themselves based on precedent and not codified until 1909) were reviewed favorably by the Court in attempting to understand "fair dealing". Philosophically the Court appears to have taken the stand that copyright law is about balancing two divergent interests.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org