Hi,
We (he.wiki community) have heard there is a problem with PD images which were created after 1946.
According to Israeli law, pictures are released to public domain 50 years from the day the picture was taken. This means that images that any picture that was taken by an Israeli before 1957 is in PD in Isreal. I understand that because of some sort of convention between Israel and the US, this rule does not apply in the US (i.e. pictures that were taken between 1946 and 1957 are PD in Israel but not PD in the US.
Thus: 1) Is this true? Can a copyright expert with expertise in Israeli law and US law confirm this? 2) If this is true, the commons template http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Israel should be fixed. 3) If this is true, I wonder why commons created PD templates for each country, is the coutry that count is only the US. If an picture need to be PD in US, what does it matter if it is PD in other coutries. And if it does matter - than Template:PD-Israel should *not* be changed.
Thanks, Yoni
P.S. If no answer is given, we will continue to upload Israeli PD images according to it's status in Israel. Yoni
2007/4/27, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com:
Hi,
We (he.wiki community) have heard there is a problem with PD images which were created after 1946.
According to Israeli law, pictures are released to public domain 50 years from the day the picture was taken. This means that images that any picture that was taken by an Israeli before 1957 is in PD in Isreal. I understand that because of some sort of convention between Israel and the US, this rule does not apply in the US ( i.e. pictures that were taken between 1946 and 1957 are PD in Israel but not PD in the US.
Thus:
- Is this true? Can a copyright expert with expertise in Israeli law and
US law confirm this? 2) If this is true, the commons template http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Israel should be fixed. 3) If this is true, I wonder why commons created PD templates for each country, is the coutry that count is only the US. If an picture need to be PD in US, what does it matter if it is PD in other coutries. And if it does matter - than Template:PD-Israel should *not* be changed.
Thanks, Yoni
I'm on a similar problem at the Portuguese Wikisource due to the [[:m:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term]] (see on [1]; but the problem is on PD-old-70 and posthumous works).
I've proposed in a private e-mail to Anthere (not yet replied, I think that she is busy in others subjects) to create a set of wikis <lang>.non- us.wikisource.org hosted outside of the United States ({{derivative}} from the Debian non-us software repository [2]) to host works PD-old worldwide but copyrighted in the USA.
commons-l have a message sent today based on the same subject: [3]
[1] - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#PD-old_non-us..._I.27m_...
[2] - http://www.debian.org/mirror/list-non-US
[3] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2007-April/001690.html
On 4/27/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
We (he.wiki community) have heard there is a problem with PD images which were created after 1946.
According to Israeli law, pictures are released to public domain 50 years from the day the picture was taken. This means that images that any picture that was taken by an Israeli before 1957 is in PD in Isreal. I understand that because of some sort of convention between Israel and the US, this rule does not apply in the US (i.e. pictures that were taken between 1946 and 1957 are PD in Israel but not PD in the US.
Thus:
- Is this true? Can a copyright expert with expertise in Israeli law and
US law confirm this? 2) If this is true, the commons template http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Israel should be fixed. 3) If this is true, I wonder why commons created PD templates for each country, is the coutry that count is only the US. If an picture need to be PD in US, what does it matter if it is PD in other coutries. And if it does matter - than Template:PD-Israel should *not* be changed.
Thanks, Yoni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 4/27/07, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com wrote:
I'm on a similar problem at the Portuguese Wikisource due to the [[:m:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term]] (see on [1]; but the problem is on PD-old-70 and posthumous works).
I've proposed in a private e-mail to Anthere (not yet replied, I think that she is busy in others subjects) to create a set of wikis <lang>.non- us.wikisource.org hosted outside of the United States ({{derivative}} from the Debian non-us software repository [2]) to host works PD-old worldwide but copyrighted in the USA.
Why not just upload the texts to http://wikilivres.info ? The servers for the site are located in Canada, and it was created by [[s:fr:User:Yann]]. It seems like we would just be recreating the wheel here with this proposal when a good alternative already exists.
Zhaladshar
On 4/28/07, Ryan Dabler zhaladshar@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/27/07, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com wrote:
I'm on a similar problem at the Portuguese Wikisource due to the [[:m:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term]] (see on [1]; but the problem is on PD-old-70 and posthumous works).
I've proposed in a private e-mail to Anthere (not yet replied, I think that she is busy in others subjects) to create a set of wikis <lang>.non- us.wikisource.org hosted outside of the United States ({{derivative}}
from
the Debian non-us software repository [2]) to host works PD-old
worldwide
but copyrighted in the USA.
Why not just upload the texts to http://wikilivres.info ? The servers for the site are located in Canada, and it was created by [[s:fr:User:Yann]]. It seems like we would just be recreating the wheel here with this proposal when a good alternative already exists.
Yann has a really good initiative setting up the wikilivres.info some mounths ago. But unfortunatelly this have limitations. Wikilivres currently is so much like the Wikisource at the beginning: a ambitious multilingual project in a single wiki site. I know the Wikisource project since 2004 (when I have created my first user account on wikisource.org/wiki: Lugusto, User ID 568). But I'm a active editor on Wikisource only since April 2006. This isn't a coincidence. Is so much confuse to work in a project like Wikisource on a multilingual wiki. The user interface is one, you try to search from a writer and you get a page in spanish, you try to read a text and get a page on italian...
Anyway, is impossible to link to a page at the wikilivres.info from Wikipedia, Wikibooks (or from Wikisource itself) without using a external link. This isn't userfriendly.
(FYI I'm going to propose to the small community from Portuguese Wikisource to ignore the non-aceptance of a short term from the USA copyright laws on adding texts, but listing the incompatible ones; if in a near future this generates some king of problem, all affected works can be easily moved/deleted to some place and no one may try to boot a admin from Wikisource if he gets prohibited to upload a work that are in public domain in their country [and possibly worldwide, except on the USA])
Luiz Augusto wrote:
Anyway, is impossible to link to a page at the wikilivres.info from Wikipedia, Wikibooks (or from Wikisource itself) without using a external link. This isn't userfriendly.
Ask it at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interwiki_map There are many hardly related sites, so i see no reason for it being rejected.
On 30/04/07, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, is impossible to link to a page at the wikilivres.info from Wikipedia, Wikibooks (or from Wikisource itself) without using a external link. This isn't userfriendly.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interwiki_map
Put a sensible request in there and a meta admin will probably approve it. Then you just need to wait until the interwiki script is run again.
- d.
Hello,
Luiz Augusto a écrit :
On 4/28/07, Ryan Dabler zhaladshar@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/27/07, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com wrote:
I'm on a similar problem at the Portuguese Wikisource due to the [[:m:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term]] (see on [1]; but the problem is on PD-old-70 and posthumous works).
I've proposed in a private e-mail to Anthere (not yet replied, I think that she is busy in others subjects) to create a set of wikis <lang>.non- us.wikisource.org hosted outside of the United States ({{derivative}}
from
the Debian non-us software repository [2]) to host works PD-old
worldwide
but copyrighted in the USA.
Why not just upload the texts to http://wikilivres.info ? The servers for the site are located in Canada, and it was created by [[s:fr:User:Yann]]. It seems like we would just be recreating the wheel here with this proposal when a good alternative already exists.
Yann has a really good initiative setting up the wikilivres.info some mounths ago. But unfortunatelly this have limitations. Wikilivres currently is so much like the Wikisource at the beginning: a ambitious multilingual project in a single wiki site. I know the Wikisource project since 2004 (when I have created my first user account on wikisource.org/wiki: Lugusto, User ID 568). But I'm a active editor on Wikisource only since April 2006. This isn't a coincidence. Is so much confuse to work in a project like Wikisource on a multilingual wiki. The user interface is one, you try to search from a writer and you get a page in spanish, you try to read a text and get a page on italian...
At the beginning, I only thought about hosting documents in French. Then I found that there are documents in English which might be usefully hosted there. So now the objective it is to change Wikilivres to a fully multilingual wiki. Just now, I have doubt about the usefulness to have several subdomains seeing the number of users and documents, but I am open to changes. Anyway you are much welcome to start a Portuguese section there. And please come to discuss on #wikilivres on Freenode or put suggestions on the wiki itself, as this is a bit offtopic here. ;o)
Anyway, is impossible to link to a page at the wikilivres.info from Wikipedia, Wikibooks (or from Wikisource itself) without using a external link. This isn't userfriendly.
A solution was proposed for that.
(FYI I'm going to propose to the small community from Portuguese Wikisource to ignore the non-aceptance of a short term from the USA copyright laws on adding texts, but listing the incompatible ones; if in a near future this generates some king of problem, all affected works can be easily moved/deleted to some place and no one may try to boot a admin from Wikisource if he gets prohibited to upload a work that are in public domain in their country [and possibly worldwide, except on the USA])
Well, most projects follow this line upto now.
Regards,
Yann
On 5/1/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hello,
Luiz Augusto a écrit :
On 4/28/07, Ryan Dabler zhaladshar@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/27/07, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com wrote:
I'm on a similar problem at the Portuguese Wikisource due to the [[:m:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term]] (see on [1]; but the problem is on PD-old-70 and posthumous works).
I've proposed in a private e-mail to Anthere (not yet replied, I think that she is busy in others subjects) to create a set of wikis <lang>.non- us.wikisource.org hosted outside of the United States ({{derivative}}
from
the Debian non-us software repository [2]) to host works PD-old
worldwide
but copyrighted in the USA.
Why not just upload the texts to http://wikilivres.info ? The servers
for
the site are located in Canada, and it was created by
[[s:fr:User:Yann]].
It seems like we would just be recreating the wheel here with this proposal when a good alternative already exists.
Yann has a really good initiative setting up the wikilivres.info some mounths ago. But unfortunatelly this have limitations. Wikilivres
currently
is so much like the Wikisource at the beginning: a ambitious
multilingual
project in a single wiki site. I know the Wikisource project since 2004 (when I have created my first user account on wikisource.org/wiki:
Lugusto,
User ID 568). But I'm a active editor on Wikisource only since April
This isn't a coincidence. Is so much confuse to work in a project like Wikisource on a multilingual wiki. The user interface is one, you try to search from a writer and you get a page in spanish, you try to read a
text
and get a page on italian...
At the beginning, I only thought about hosting documents in French. Then I found that there are documents in English which might be usefully hosted there. So now the objective it is to change Wikilivres to a fully multilingual wiki. Just now, I have doubt about the usefulness to have several subdomains seeing the number of users and documents, but I am open to changes. Anyway you are much welcome to start a Portuguese section there. And please come to discuss on #wikilivres on Freenode or put suggestions on the wiki itself, as this is a bit offtopic here. ;o)
I aren't telling to you change wikilivres.info. It is a functional wiki for theirs purposes. I've only replied to a question ;)
Anyway, is impossible to link to a page at the wikilivres.info from
Wikipedia, Wikibooks (or from Wikisource itself) without using a
external
link. This isn't userfriendly.
A solution was proposed for that.
Thanks for all that have mentioned the interwiki map. This is new to me and I've made a request for addition.
Is there any possibility that the foundation represents it's insight on the PD-Israel issue? I want to be 100% sure that there are images that are PD in Israel but not PD in the US before I delete such images from the Hebrew Wikipedia. yoni
2007/5/1, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com:
On 5/1/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hello,
Luiz Augusto a écrit :
On 4/28/07, Ryan Dabler zhaladshar@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/27/07, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com wrote:
I'm on a similar problem at the Portuguese Wikisource due to the [[:m:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term]] (see
on
[1]; but the problem is on PD-old-70 and posthumous works).
I've proposed in a private e-mail to Anthere (not yet replied, I
think
that she is busy in others subjects) to create a set of wikis <lang>.non- us.wikisource.org hosted outside of the United States
({{derivative}}
from
the Debian non-us software repository [2]) to host works PD-old
worldwide
but copyrighted in the USA.
Why not just upload the texts to http://wikilivres.info ? The
servers
for
the site are located in Canada, and it was created by
[[s:fr:User:Yann]].
It seems like we would just be recreating the wheel here with this proposal when a good alternative already exists.
Yann has a really good initiative setting up the wikilivres.info some mounths ago. But unfortunatelly this have limitations. Wikilivres
currently
is so much like the Wikisource at the beginning: a ambitious
multilingual
project in a single wiki site. I know the Wikisource project since
2004
(when I have created my first user account on wikisource.org/wiki:
Lugusto,
User ID 568). But I'm a active editor on Wikisource only since April
This isn't a coincidence. Is so much confuse to work in a project like Wikisource on a multilingual wiki. The user interface is one, you try
to
search from a writer and you get a page in spanish, you try to read a
text
and get a page on italian...
At the beginning, I only thought about hosting documents in French. Then I found that there are documents in English which might be usefully hosted there. So now the objective it is to change Wikilivres to a fully multilingual wiki. Just now, I have doubt about the usefulness to have several subdomains seeing the number of users and documents, but I am open to changes. Anyway you are much welcome to start a Portuguese section there. And please come to discuss on #wikilivres on Freenode or put suggestions on the wiki itself, as this is a bit offtopic here. ;o)
I aren't telling to you change wikilivres.info. It is a functional wiki for theirs purposes. I've only replied to a question ;)
Anyway, is impossible to link to a page at the wikilivres.info from
Wikipedia, Wikibooks (or from Wikisource itself) without using a
external
link. This isn't userfriendly.
A solution was proposed for that.
Thanks for all that have mentioned the interwiki map. This is new to me and I've made a request for addition. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Related to this, there is a discussion on Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Images_PD_outside_o...
Maybe somebody from the Foundation is willing to comment there?
Bryan
On 5/6/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any possibility that the foundation represents it's insight on the PD-Israel issue? I want to be 100% sure that there are images that are PD in Israel but not PD in the US before I delete such images from the Hebrew Wikipedia. yoni
2007/5/1, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com:
On 5/1/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hello,
Luiz Augusto a écrit :
On 4/28/07, Ryan Dabler zhaladshar@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/27/07, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com wrote:
I'm on a similar problem at the Portuguese Wikisource due to the [[:m:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term]] (see
on
[1]; but the problem is on PD-old-70 and posthumous works).
I've proposed in a private e-mail to Anthere (not yet replied, I
think
that she is busy in others subjects) to create a set of wikis <lang>.non- us.wikisource.org hosted outside of the United States
({{derivative}}
from
the Debian non-us software repository [2]) to host works PD-old
worldwide
but copyrighted in the USA.
Why not just upload the texts to http://wikilivres.info ? The
servers
for
the site are located in Canada, and it was created by
[[s:fr:User:Yann]].
It seems like we would just be recreating the wheel here with this proposal when a good alternative already exists.
Yann has a really good initiative setting up the wikilivres.info some mounths ago. But unfortunatelly this have limitations. Wikilivres
currently
is so much like the Wikisource at the beginning: a ambitious
multilingual
project in a single wiki site. I know the Wikisource project since
2004
(when I have created my first user account on wikisource.org/wiki:
Lugusto,
User ID 568). But I'm a active editor on Wikisource only since April
This isn't a coincidence. Is so much confuse to work in a project like Wikisource on a multilingual wiki. The user interface is one, you try
to
search from a writer and you get a page in spanish, you try to read a
text
and get a page on italian...
At the beginning, I only thought about hosting documents in French. Then I found that there are documents in English which might be usefully hosted there. So now the objective it is to change Wikilivres to a fully multilingual wiki. Just now, I have doubt about the usefulness to have several subdomains seeing the number of users and documents, but I am open to changes. Anyway you are much welcome to start a Portuguese section there. And please come to discuss on #wikilivres on Freenode or put suggestions on the wiki itself, as this is a bit offtopic here. ;o)
I aren't telling to you change wikilivres.info. It is a functional wiki for theirs purposes. I've only replied to a question ;)
Anyway, is impossible to link to a page at the wikilivres.info from
Wikipedia, Wikibooks (or from Wikisource itself) without using a
external
link. This isn't userfriendly.
A solution was proposed for that.
Thanks for all that have mentioned the interwiki map. This is new to me and I've made a request for addition. _______________________________________________ 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
If someone is interested, discussion on the same subject at Portuguese Wikisource: http://pt.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Esplanada/Problemas_de_dom%C3%ADnio...
On 5/6/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
Related to this, there is a discussion on Commons:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Images_PD_outside_o...
Maybe somebody from the Foundation is willing to comment there?
Bryan
On 5/6/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any possibility that the foundation represents it's insight on
the
PD-Israel issue? I want to be 100% sure that there are images that are
PD in
Israel but not PD in the US before I delete such images from the Hebrew Wikipedia. yoni
2007/5/1, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com:
On 5/1/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hello,
Luiz Augusto a écrit :
On 4/28/07, Ryan Dabler zhaladshar@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/27/07, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com wrote: > I'm on a similar problem at the Portuguese Wikisource due to the > [[:m:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term]]
(see
on
> [1]; > but the problem is on PD-old-70 and posthumous works). > > I've proposed in a private e-mail to Anthere (not yet replied, I
think
> that > she is busy in others subjects) to create a set of wikis
<lang>.non-
> us.wikisource.org hosted outside of the United States
({{derivative}}
from > the Debian non-us software repository [2]) to host works PD-old worldwide > but copyrighted in the USA.
Why not just upload the texts to http://wikilivres.info ? The
servers
for
the site are located in Canada, and it was created by
[[s:fr:User:Yann]].
It seems like we would just be recreating the wheel here with
this
proposal when a good alternative already exists.
Yann has a really good initiative setting up the wikilivres.infosome mounths ago. But unfortunatelly this have limitations. Wikilivres
currently
is so much like the Wikisource at the beginning: a ambitious
multilingual
project in a single wiki site. I know the Wikisource project since
2004
(when I have created my first user account on wikisource.org/wiki:
Lugusto,
User ID 568). But I'm a active editor on Wikisource only since
April
This isn't a coincidence. Is so much confuse to work in a project
like
Wikisource on a multilingual wiki. The user interface is one, you
try
to
search from a writer and you get a page in spanish, you try to
read a
text
and get a page on italian...
At the beginning, I only thought about hosting documents in French.
Then
I found that there are documents in English which might be usefully hosted there. So now the objective it is to change Wikilivres to a
fully
multilingual wiki. Just now, I have doubt about the usefulness to
have
several subdomains seeing the number of users and documents, but I
am
open to changes. Anyway you are much welcome to start a Portuguese section there. And please come to discuss on #wikilivres on Freenode
or
put suggestions on the wiki itself, as this is a bit offtopic here.
;o)
I aren't telling to you change wikilivres.info. It is a functional
wiki
for theirs purposes. I've only replied to a question ;)
Anyway, is impossible to link to a page at the wikilivres.info from
Wikipedia, Wikibooks (or from Wikisource itself) without using a
external
link. This isn't userfriendly.
A solution was proposed for that.
Thanks for all that have mentioned the interwiki map. This is new to
me
and I've made a request for addition. _______________________________________________ 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
Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
Related to this, there is a discussion on Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Images_PD_outside_o...
Maybe somebody from the Foundation is willing to comment there?
Bryan
On 5/6/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any possibility that the foundation represents it's insight on the PD-Israel issue? I want to be 100% sure that there are images that are PD in Israel but not PD in the US before I delete such images from the Hebrew Wikipedia.
Another thing that one might consider in this is the ruling at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Itar-Tass_Russian_News_Agency_v._Russian_Kurie...
This did rule that ownership of a copyright was ruled by the law of the country of origin. Ownership of a copyright also has duration of copyright as one of its elements. Thus it can be argued that the other country's duration should apply. It is not the Berne Convention the is affecting the duration of copyright, since that would generate a life + 50 years situation rather than the longer period that exists in many other countries.
Another interesting argument that can be made for restored works is that they would be granted the protection available to US works on the basis of the law at the time they were published. A US work published in 1924 had to have its copyright renewed in 1952. The same should apply to restored foreign works.
Ec
Looks like no decision has been made by the Foundation regarding such images. Please notify other projects what a decision has been reached. Theretofore, I shall follow the local copyright law as {{PD-Israel}} states. I expect Commons to act the same way and not delete such images until the Foundation says otherwise. Yoni
2007/5/7, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
Related to this, there is a discussion on Commons:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Images_PD_outside_o...
Maybe somebody from the Foundation is willing to comment there?
Bryan
On 5/6/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any possibility that the foundation represents it's insight on
the
PD-Israel issue? I want to be 100% sure that there are images that are
PD in
Israel but not PD in the US before I delete such images from the Hebrew Wikipedia.
Another thing that one might consider in this is the ruling at
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Itar-Tass_Russian_News_Agency_v._Russian_Kurie...
This did rule that ownership of a copyright was ruled by the law of the country of origin. Ownership of a copyright also has duration of copyright as one of its elements. Thus it can be argued that the other country's duration should apply. It is not the Berne Convention the is affecting the duration of copyright, since that would generate a life + 50 years situation rather than the longer period that exists in many other countries.
Another interesting argument that can be made for restored works is that they would be granted the protection available to US works on the basis of the law at the time they were published. A US work published in 1924 had to have its copyright renewed in 1952. The same should apply to restored foreign works.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Only three board members have given their opinion for now. 1 is in favor of 3, and two in favor of 1. This said, I prefer having a legal advice on this. So, I consider the topic is currently pending. Hopefully, with an answer soon. Meanwhile, please be careful in tagging such images.
Ant
Yoni Weiden wrote:
Looks like no decision has been made by the Foundation regarding such images. Please notify other projects what a decision has been reached. Theretofore, I shall follow the local copyright law as {{PD-Israel}} states. I expect Commons to act the same way and not delete such images until the Foundation says otherwise. Yoni
2007/5/7, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
Related to this, there is a discussion on Commons:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Images_PD_outside_o...
Maybe somebody from the Foundation is willing to comment there?
Bryan
On 5/6/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any possibility that the foundation represents it's insight on
the
PD-Israel issue? I want to be 100% sure that there are images that are
PD in
Israel but not PD in the US before I delete such images from the Hebrew Wikipedia.
Another thing that one might consider in this is the ruling at
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Itar-Tass_Russian_News_Agency_v._Russian_Kurie...
This did rule that ownership of a copyright was ruled by the law of the country of origin. Ownership of a copyright also has duration of copyright as one of its elements. Thus it can be argued that the other country's duration should apply. It is not the Berne Convention the is affecting the duration of copyright, since that would generate a life + 50 years situation rather than the longer period that exists in many other countries.
Another interesting argument that can be made for restored works is that they would be granted the protection available to US works on the basis of the law at the time they were published. A US work published in 1924 had to have its copyright renewed in 1952. The same should apply to restored foreign works.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 5/7/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
Looks like no decision has been made by the Foundation regarding such images. Please notify other projects what a decision has been reached. Theretofore, I shall follow the local copyright law as {{PD-Israel}} states. I expect Commons to act the same way and not delete such images until the Foundation says otherwise. Yoni
Commons has never waited for a foundation statement before removing what it thinks are copyvios. it is not going to start now.
I just put an email to the board to follow up on the wikicommons discussion. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Opinion_section
Ant
Yoni Weiden wrote:
Is there any possibility that the foundation represents it's insight on the PD-Israel issue? I want to be 100% sure that there are images that are PD in Israel but not PD in the US before I delete such images from the Hebrew Wikipedia. yoni
2007/5/1, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com:
On 5/1/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hello,
Luiz Augusto a écrit :
On 4/28/07, Ryan Dabler zhaladshar@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/27/07, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com wrote:
I'm on a similar problem at the Portuguese Wikisource due to the [[:m:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term]] (see
on
[1]; but the problem is on PD-old-70 and posthumous works).
I've proposed in a private e-mail to Anthere (not yet replied, I
think
that she is busy in others subjects) to create a set of wikis <lang>.non- us.wikisource.org hosted outside of the United States
({{derivative}}
from
the Debian non-us software repository [2]) to host works PD-old
worldwide
but copyrighted in the USA.
Why not just upload the texts to http://wikilivres.info ? The
servers
for
the site are located in Canada, and it was created by
[[s:fr:User:Yann]].
It seems like we would just be recreating the wheel here with this proposal when a good alternative already exists.
Yann has a really good initiative setting up the wikilivres.info some mounths ago. But unfortunatelly this have limitations. Wikilivres
currently
is so much like the Wikisource at the beginning: a ambitious
multilingual
project in a single wiki site. I know the Wikisource project since
2004
(when I have created my first user account on wikisource.org/wiki:
Lugusto,
User ID 568). But I'm a active editor on Wikisource only since April
This isn't a coincidence. Is so much confuse to work in a project like Wikisource on a multilingual wiki. The user interface is one, you try
to
search from a writer and you get a page in spanish, you try to read a
text
and get a page on italian...
At the beginning, I only thought about hosting documents in French. Then I found that there are documents in English which might be usefully hosted there. So now the objective it is to change Wikilivres to a fully multilingual wiki. Just now, I have doubt about the usefulness to have several subdomains seeing the number of users and documents, but I am open to changes. Anyway you are much welcome to start a Portuguese section there. And please come to discuss on #wikilivres on Freenode or put suggestions on the wiki itself, as this is a bit offtopic here. ;o)
I aren't telling to you change wikilivres.info. It is a functional wiki for theirs purposes. I've only replied to a question ;)
Anyway, is impossible to link to a page at the wikilivres.info from
Wikipedia, Wikibooks (or from Wikisource itself) without using a
external
link. This isn't userfriendly.
A solution was proposed for that.
Thanks for all that have mentioned the interwiki map. This is new to me and I've made a request for addition. _______________________________________________ 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
The issue has been raised to the board. The board comment is Commons must follow the widest possible copyright policy, meaning the most conservative, meaning simultaneously following the laws of all countries at once.
As for the other projects, please see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy for more information.
Luiz also suggested other options, such as separate hosting (some databases not in the USA). We would prefer to wait until we have again a General Counsel on board to further explore such option.
Sorry for those who will be disappointed and hoped to keep many documents which are PD in some countries, but not PD in the USA. I do not like this rule more than you, but, on Wikimedia Commons, we should provide a safe harbour, a warranty of freedom, which would be damaged by any adoption of PD-CountryXX tag system.
anthere
Yoni Weiden wrote:
Is there any possibility that the foundation represents it's insight on the PD-Israel issue? I want to be 100% sure that there are images that are PD in Israel but not PD in the US before I delete such images from the Hebrew Wikipedia. yoni
2007/5/1, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com:
On 5/1/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hello,
Luiz Augusto a écrit :
On 4/28/07, Ryan Dabler zhaladshar@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/27/07, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com wrote:
I'm on a similar problem at the Portuguese Wikisource due to the [[:m:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term]] (see
on
[1]; but the problem is on PD-old-70 and posthumous works).
I've proposed in a private e-mail to Anthere (not yet replied, I
think
that she is busy in others subjects) to create a set of wikis <lang>.non- us.wikisource.org hosted outside of the United States
({{derivative}}
from
the Debian non-us software repository [2]) to host works PD-old
worldwide
but copyrighted in the USA.
Why not just upload the texts to http://wikilivres.info ? The
servers
for
the site are located in Canada, and it was created by
[[s:fr:User:Yann]].
It seems like we would just be recreating the wheel here with this proposal when a good alternative already exists.
Yann has a really good initiative setting up the wikilivres.info some mounths ago. But unfortunatelly this have limitations. Wikilivres
currently
is so much like the Wikisource at the beginning: a ambitious
multilingual
project in a single wiki site. I know the Wikisource project since
2004
(when I have created my first user account on wikisource.org/wiki:
Lugusto,
User ID 568). But I'm a active editor on Wikisource only since April
This isn't a coincidence. Is so much confuse to work in a project like Wikisource on a multilingual wiki. The user interface is one, you try
to
search from a writer and you get a page in spanish, you try to read a
text
and get a page on italian...
At the beginning, I only thought about hosting documents in French. Then I found that there are documents in English which might be usefully hosted there. So now the objective it is to change Wikilivres to a fully multilingual wiki. Just now, I have doubt about the usefulness to have several subdomains seeing the number of users and documents, but I am open to changes. Anyway you are much welcome to start a Portuguese section there. And please come to discuss on #wikilivres on Freenode or put suggestions on the wiki itself, as this is a bit offtopic here. ;o)
I aren't telling to you change wikilivres.info. It is a functional wiki for theirs purposes. I've only replied to a question ;)
Anyway, is impossible to link to a page at the wikilivres.info from
Wikipedia, Wikibooks (or from Wikisource itself) without using a
external
link. This isn't userfriendly.
A solution was proposed for that.
Thanks for all that have mentioned the interwiki map. This is new to me and I've made a request for addition. _______________________________________________ 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
On 5/8/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
The issue has been raised to the board. The board comment is Commons must follow the widest possible copyright policy, meaning the most conservative, meaning simultaneously following the laws of all countries at once.
That isn't really possible possible (laws mutually contradict) and I can't see us following Mexican law for most stuff.
On 5/8/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
The issue has been raised to the board. The board comment is Commons must follow the widest possible copyright policy, meaning the most conservative, meaning simultaneously following the laws of all countries at once.
The Board has not voted or decided on the issue.
And I do not agree that we need to "follow the laws of all countries at once".
Ah, and...
You know what....
Just as I was clicking on "send", another member who had not spoken yet, gave its opinion, which fully contradicts the 3 other ones opinion :-)
Well guys... looks like our position sort of reflects the uncertainties of commons vote.
So, as I told the board a few days ago, my position is to "wait and see till a US lawyer has given his analysis on this". I'll stick to it. And meanwhile, I invite the 4 board members who made comments, to engage in discussion on this list :-)
Anthere
Florence Devouard wrote:
The issue has been raised to the board. The board comment is Commons must follow the widest possible copyright policy, meaning the most conservative, meaning simultaneously following the laws of all countries at once.
As for the other projects, please see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy for more information.
Luiz also suggested other options, such as separate hosting (some databases not in the USA). We would prefer to wait until we have again a General Counsel on board to further explore such option.
Sorry for those who will be disappointed and hoped to keep many documents which are PD in some countries, but not PD in the USA. I do not like this rule more than you, but, on Wikimedia Commons, we should provide a safe harbour, a warranty of freedom, which would be damaged by any adoption of PD-CountryXX tag system.
anthere
Yoni Weiden wrote:
Is there any possibility that the foundation represents it's insight on the PD-Israel issue? I want to be 100% sure that there are images that are PD in Israel but not PD in the US before I delete such images from the Hebrew Wikipedia. yoni
2007/5/1, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com:
On 5/1/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hello,
Luiz Augusto a écrit :
On 4/28/07, Ryan Dabler zhaladshar@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/27/07, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com wrote: > I'm on a similar problem at the Portuguese Wikisource due to the > [[:m:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term]] (see
on
> [1]; > but the problem is on PD-old-70 and posthumous works). > > I've proposed in a private e-mail to Anthere (not yet replied, I
think
> that > she is busy in others subjects) to create a set of wikis <lang>.non- > us.wikisource.org hosted outside of the United States
({{derivative}}
from > the Debian non-us software repository [2]) to host works PD-old worldwide > but copyrighted in the USA. Why not just upload the texts to http://wikilivres.info ? The
servers
for
the site are located in Canada, and it was created by
[[s:fr:User:Yann]].
It seems like we would just be recreating the wheel here with this proposal when a good alternative already exists.
Yann has a really good initiative setting up the wikilivres.info some mounths ago. But unfortunatelly this have limitations. Wikilivres
currently
is so much like the Wikisource at the beginning: a ambitious
multilingual
project in a single wiki site. I know the Wikisource project since
2004
(when I have created my first user account on wikisource.org/wiki:
Lugusto,
User ID 568). But I'm a active editor on Wikisource only since April
This isn't a coincidence. Is so much confuse to work in a project like Wikisource on a multilingual wiki. The user interface is one, you try
to
search from a writer and you get a page in spanish, you try to read a
text
and get a page on italian...
At the beginning, I only thought about hosting documents in French. Then I found that there are documents in English which might be usefully hosted there. So now the objective it is to change Wikilivres to a fully multilingual wiki. Just now, I have doubt about the usefulness to have several subdomains seeing the number of users and documents, but I am open to changes. Anyway you are much welcome to start a Portuguese section there. And please come to discuss on #wikilivres on Freenode or put suggestions on the wiki itself, as this is a bit offtopic here. ;o)
I aren't telling to you change wikilivres.info. It is a functional wiki for theirs purposes. I've only replied to a question ;)
Anyway, is impossible to link to a page at the wikilivres.info from
Wikipedia, Wikibooks (or from Wikisource itself) without using a
external
link. This isn't userfriendly.
A solution was proposed for that.
Thanks for all that have mentioned the interwiki map. This is new to me and I've made a request for addition. _______________________________________________ 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
Just as I was clicking on "send", another member who had not spoken yet, gave its opinion, which fully contradicts the 3 other ones opinion :-)
Is it really wise to speak for the board when you've only consulted 3 members? I don't know what the quorum is, but I'm sure it's more than 3.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Just as I was clicking on "send", another member who had not spoken yet, gave its opinion, which fully contradicts the 3 other ones opinion :-)
Is it really wise to speak for the board when you've only consulted 3 members? I don't know what the quorum is, but I'm sure it's more than 3.
I didn't read it as expressing the view of the Board. It merely noted that opinion was divided, and that no decision had been made.
Ec
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Just as I was clicking on "send", another member who had not spoken yet, gave its opinion, which fully contradicts the 3 other ones opinion :-)
Is it really wise to speak for the board when you've only consulted 3 members? I don't know what the quorum is, but I'm sure it's more than 3.
Plus my opinion, makes 4. That makes a quorum. I will mention that I did not consult ONLY 3 people, I never do that. I ask all of them. They can answer or not answer.
And yes, that outlines that there should be a deadline to answer a question/gives an opinion.
I increasingly have a problem of incompatibility of * on one hand, the desire of the community, of the staff, of potential partners, of journalists, etc... to always have an answer as soon as possible, preferably yesterday
* on the other hand, an increasing requirement for procedures, with written statements (resolutions - which needs to be written by someone), delay requirements for calling a meeting (10 days minimum), quorum (which implies board members should be very frequently available to assist most meetings)
The internet flexibility does not fit well with bureaucratic requirements.
A recent example for me was the DVD key issue. I got several emails of people requesting a Foundation feedback during the night. When I got online, more requests on irc and by skype. Request was made to immediately provide the position of the Foundation on the DVD matter.
Right. So, first collect the information (what is that key story anyway ?). Then find a lawyer. Ask for an opinion. Wait for the feedback. Write to board members and ask their opinion. Wait for the answers. Read further emails received from english admin asking Foundation position ASAP. Wait for USA to wake up. Then collect 2 comments. Wonder if two comments are sufficient to represent Foundation opinion. Wait more ? 1 hour ? 4 hours ? Consider feedback sufficient in spite of no quorum ? Write down a resolution and call for a meeting in 10 days ? Hope 4 people will be there to vote ?
I am partly joking. But only partly. Some people will complain I did not give enough time to give a feedback. Others that the Foundation is becoming a heavy machine unable to make decisions. Both will be correct probably. Another solution to speed up process would be to make decisions alone and speak in the name of the board (which is probably legal), which would be said to be power abuse. Nothing's ever perfect :-)
ant
On 5/8/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
A recent example for me was the DVD key issue. I got several emails of people requesting a Foundation feedback during the night. When I got online, more requests on irc and by skype. Request was made to immediately provide the position of the Foundation on the DVD matter.
We should not comment on such day-to-day policy and editorial processes unless there is a critical need to do so (legal action and sometimes threats, for example). Rather, we need to help the community to fix its problems on its own. The question to answer is: Where do community decision making processes get stuck and why? The project closure issue is a good example.
Relying on consensus-building alone tends to lead to decisions by attrition or no decisions at all in controversial cases. We should be more open about letting the community vote, or applying the model of "weighted arguments" used in other processes (community discussion with closure by a self-selected sample of highly trusted individuals).
How can the Commons discussion on this particular copyright issue be closed in a fair manner _by the community_, rather than by means of a top down prescription from the Board?
We (Board) have many high level problems to think about. And helping the community to govern itself is exactly one of them.
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 5/8/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
A recent example for me was the DVD key issue. I got several emails of people requesting a Foundation feedback during the night. When I got online, more requests on irc and by skype. Request was made to immediately provide the position of the Foundation on the DVD matter.
We should not comment on such day-to-day policy and editorial processes unless there is a critical need to do so (legal action and sometimes threats, for example).
Sorry, but I really do not agree on this specific point. I consider issues around copyright and licenses to be amongst those "major rules", which should not be changed just because 15 people vote for a change. The rule planned to be changed is at the core of the wikimedia commons project. See here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Material_in_the_public_d...
I tend to believe that whilst the day to day editorial policies are totally in the hands of the community, changing the core rules of a project is different. At a minimum, it deserves our attention.
On 5/8/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Sorry, but I really do not agree on this specific point. I consider issues around copyright and licenses to be amongst those "major rules", which should not be changed just because 15 people vote for a change. The rule planned to be changed is at the core of the wikimedia commons project.
It is a significant discussion, not unlike many we've had before such as the PD-Soviet templates or the sxc.hu licensing issues. In this case, as I understand it, the main question is whether we want to permit _some_ level of legal uncertainty. As much as I am favor of aiming for the highest level of legal clarity, I view it (above a certain threshold) as a quality attribute of a resource that we can increase gradually, in the same way we improve articles in a wiki.
To put this in more practical terms, there are a number of uncertainties:
* Many of our uploaders use only pseudonyms. We have never verified their identities. Some of them may maliciously misappropriate content by others and hide behind their false identity. * Our doctrine that reproductions of PD works are to be considered PD has not been tested at the highest legal levels, and is heavily disputed by many entities. * In spite of our best efforts, there will often be cases where people choose a free content license without realizing the consequences. Typically, we will comply with later demands to remove such works. * We use a rather colorful mix of licenses, including some license-like templates of our own making. Many of these have never been tested in court.
etc. etc. IMHO we have to live with some of these uncertainties (and try to resolve them over time), and as far as I understand the issue, this appears to be such a case. I consider it wise to let the community define these boundaries of certainty, both in terms of maintaining a bit of a legal distance between the org. and the implementation of the speciifc policies, and because I think our community is smart enough to figure out sane compromises.
The Licensing Policy is pretty detailed. It needs some refinements but is IMHO a good basis for communities to develop project-level policies upon.
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 5/8/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
A recent example for me was the DVD key issue. I got several emails of people requesting a Foundation feedback during the night. When I got online, more requests on irc and by skype. Request was made to immediately provide the position of the Foundation on the DVD matter.
We should not comment on such day-to-day policy and editorial processes unless there is a critical need to do so (legal action and sometimes threats, for example). Rather, we need to help the community to fix its problems on its own. The question to answer is: Where do community decision making processes get stuck and why? The project closure issue is a good example.
It's a tough situation because I can see where there are people who would drive the Board in two opposing directions. Some people cannot function without rules, while others have the maturity to apply common sense to the situation at hand. Being able to depend on the security of a rule relieves the burden of having to make hard decisions. Of course, those who most want the rules also want them to reflect their own preconceptions. The crew of the Enterprise needs to remain fully conscious of the Prime Directive. The communities MUST be free to solve their own problems, and make their own mistakes; without that they are not learning communities.
The Foundation should avoid deciding for and interfering with the communities in other than the most strictly defined circumstances. Even when legalities are involved the communities need to find their own levels of comfort in the extent to which they will accept legal risks. With the DVD key issue the Foundation should resist the temptation to step in and say, " _this_ will be the rule." It absolutely needs to respond to proper legal demands; it must not let itself become the flotsom of legal speculation.
Relying on consensus-building alone tends to lead to decisions by attrition or no decisions at all in controversial cases. We should be more open about letting the community vote, or applying the model of "weighted arguments" used in other processes (community discussion with closure by a self-selected sample of highly trusted individuals).
I wouldn't6 want to be tied down to the "voting is evil" mantra. Nevertheless, voting can have the effect of polarizing a discussion, and excluding the middle. Decisions by attritionare no better because they shut out the more contemplative approach to a problem. Much of decision-making tends to be dominated by people who can't live without rules; that's just another variation on the same theme played by those who insistt on the board making these decisions. Putting the final decision in the hands of a self-selected group of elders comes with it's own problems. It requires a very high degree of trust, and, as Danny's request for adminship showed, we do not lack in people who are willing to put their own petty vindictiveness ahead of the common good. As a society we have learned not to trust. We have learned this through implicit and not explicit lessons. When the most visible public models are indecisive, incompetent, self-serving or corrupt we learn mistrust, and anticipate similar behaviours in everyone. We cease to assume good faith, and build structures that are primarily designed to deal with the undesireable. Exuberant youthful impatience only compounds the problem.
If we could solve the problems of the decision making process, it could be an even greater accomplishment than our encyclopedia. This requires accepting change as a constant. It also requires accepting that the voice of newbies is just as important to yesterday's decisions as it is to tomorrow's
How can the Commons discussion on this particular copyright issue be closed in a fair manner _by the community_, rather than by means of a top down prescription from the Board?
Give the community time to solve it. Don't expect an immediate solution. As long as there is no immediate and credible legal threat it might take a few weeks to fix the problem, but that's all right. All the panic, alarms and doomsday scenarios that come out of such issues are just that.
We (Board) have many high level problems to think about. And helping the community to govern itself is exactly one of them.
OK, not only helping it to govern itself, but letting it govern itself.
Ec
Plus my opinion, makes 4. That makes a quorum. I will mention that I did not consult ONLY 3 people, I never do that. I ask all of them. They can answer or not answer.
And yes, that outlines that there should be a deadline to answer a question/gives an opinion.
I increasingly have a problem of incompatibility of
- on one hand, the desire of the community, of the staff, of potential
partners, of journalists, etc... to always have an answer as soon as possible, preferably yesterday
- on the other hand, an increasing requirement for procedures, with
written statements (resolutions - which needs to be written by someone), delay requirements for calling a meeting (10 days minimum), quorum (which implies board members should be very frequently available to assist most meetings)
If you don't have time to go through the proper process and get something that can genuinely be considered an official board position (to do that does require a meeting), then you shouldn't state it as a board position. It isn't hard to say "The 4 board members who have currently expressed an opinion agree that...".
On 5/7/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If you don't have time to go through the proper process and get something that can genuinely be considered an official board position (to do that does require a meeting), then you shouldn't state it as a board position. It isn't hard to say "The 4 board members who have currently expressed an opinion agree that...".
If you don't have nothing to help on this issue, please stop on acting like a troll. So sorry for assuming bad faith.
On 5/8/07, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/7/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If you don't have time to go through the proper process and get something that can genuinely be considered an official board position (to do that does require a meeting), then you shouldn't state it as a board position. It isn't hard to say "The 4 board members who have currently expressed an opinion agree that...".
If you don't have nothing to help on this issue, please stop on acting like a troll. So sorry for assuming bad faith.
Ahem. This list is open to everybody and comment is free... Whilst the list moderators will, on sight or upon request, deal with genuine trolling (such as blatant personal attacks etc.), stating one's opinion ("You shouldn't have done this, you should have rather done this...") without accusing anybody of misconduct or abuse of powers is not yet trolling, even if you believe this opinion to be nonsense.
It would help this list if members could restrict themselves to factual posts. If you really need to tell somebody that you consider him a troll, please do so in private and not via the list.
Thank you.
Michael List administrator
Florence Devouard wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Just as I was clicking on "send", another member who had not spoken yet, gave its opinion, which fully contradicts the 3 other ones opinion :-)
Is it really wise to speak for the board when you've only consulted 3 members? I don't know what the quorum is, but I'm sure it's more than 3.
Plus my opinion, makes 4. That makes a quorum. I will mention that I did not consult ONLY 3 people, I never do that. I ask all of them. They can answer or not answer.
And yes, that outlines that there should be a deadline to answer a question/gives an opinion.
Why should you need a deadline? Is it your demand or someone else's?
I increasingly have a problem of incompatibility of
- on one hand, the desire of the community, of the staff, of potential
partners, of journalists, etc... to always have an answer as soon as possible, preferably yesterday
- on the other hand, an increasing requirement for procedures, with
written statements (resolutions - which needs to be written by someone), delay requirements for calling a meeting (10 days minimum), quorum (which implies board members should be very frequently available to assist most meetings)
The internet flexibility does not fit well with bureaucratic requirements.
Yep! We need to find new ways of doing things.
A recent example for me was the DVD key issue. I got several emails of people requesting a Foundation feedback during the night. When I got online, more requests on irc and by skype. Request was made to immediately provide the position of the Foundation on the DVD matter.
Right. So, first collect the information (what is that key story anyway ?). Then find a lawyer. Ask for an opinion. Wait for the feedback. Write to board members and ask their opinion. Wait for the answers. Read further emails received from english admin asking Foundation position ASAP. Wait for USA to wake up. Then collect 2 comments. Wonder if two comments are sufficient to represent Foundation opinion. Wait more ? 1 hour ? 4 hours ? Consider feedback sufficient in spite of no quorum ? Write down a resolution and call for a meeting in 10 days ? Hope 4 people will be there to vote ?
Tell them that you will answer in a week or two ...... maybe. Your reaction is very maternal. It is a mother's instinct to want all her children to be safe, but when those children number in the thousands you are soon confronted with your limitations.
I am partly joking. But only partly. Some people will complain I did not give enough time to give a feedback. Others that the Foundation is becoming a heavy machine unable to make decisions. Both will be correct probably. Another solution to speed up process would be to make decisions alone and speak in the name of the board (which is probably legal), which would be said to be power abuse.
SNAFU = Situation Normal, All Fucked Up. Don't become captive to the panic of others.
Nothing's ever perfect :-)
I don't even expect that of you. ;-)
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Just as I was clicking on "send", another member who had not spoken yet, gave its opinion, which fully contradicts the 3 other ones opinion :-)
Is it really wise to speak for the board when you've only consulted 3 members? I don't know what the quorum is, but I'm sure it's more than 3.
Plus my opinion, makes 4. That makes a quorum. I will mention that I did not consult ONLY 3 people, I never do that. I ask all of them. They can answer or not answer.
And yes, that outlines that there should be a deadline to answer a question/gives an opinion.
Why should you need a deadline? Is it your demand or someone else's?
This was a general comment. Not a demand for this specific situation.
Currently, a resolution may stay open for vote for weeks, as there is no mechanism to close it (except when all members have voted). Often, a resolution is closed after we reached the quorum. Sometimes, it is left open for a few more days to allow late members to vote as well. In most voting systems, there is a beginning to vote... and an end. Legally speaking, I just need a quorum. But practically speaking...
I just need to fix that :-)
In a similar way, when I ask an open question to the board, should I let it open forever, at the risk of people to give their opinion with big delays, or should I say "you have xxx days to give your opinion".
By the way, from which city are you in Canada ?
Florence Devouard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Just as I was clicking on "send", another member who had not spoken yet, gave its opinion, which fully contradicts the 3 other ones opinion :-)
Is it really wise to speak for the board when you've only consulted 3 members? I don't know what the quorum is, but I'm sure it's more than 3.
Plus my opinion, makes 4. That makes a quorum. I will mention that I did not consult ONLY 3 people, I never do that. I ask all of them. They can answer or not answer.
And yes, that outlines that there should be a deadline to answer a question/gives an opinion.
Why should you need a deadline? Is it your demand or someone else's?
This was a general comment. Not a demand for this specific situation.
Currently, a resolution may stay open for vote for weeks, as there is no mechanism to close it (except when all members have voted). Often, a resolution is closed after we reached the quorum. Sometimes, it is left open for a few more days to allow late members to vote as well. In most voting systems, there is a beginning to vote... and an end. Legally speaking, I just need a quorum. But practically speaking...
I just need to fix that :-)
I sometimes feel that your "job" must be very frustrating. :'( I don't think that the quorum quibble which Thomas raised was very helpful, nor is anyone's anxiety to view everything you say as the pope's official word. Sometimes when you ask questions, it's because you are looking for answers. The internal procedures that the Board follows in arriving at decisions belong exclusively to the Board. One hopes they will be fair, and in the end, as the Carver model shows, the Board speaks with one voice. The Board may choose to be open in its deliberations, but those who observe those deliberations must fully understand the difference between a proposal and a decision. Even a proposal that has the unanimous support of the Board's members is not yet a decision.
BTW when I attended a conference I had a chat with a person who trains non-profit boards in Carver governance. I still can't say that I fully understand some of the ideas. :-(
In a similar way, when I ask an open question to the board, should I let it open forever, at the risk of people to give their opinion with big delays, or should I say "you have xxx days to give your opinion".
It often depends on the question, its importance and its urgency. One would think it would be easy to get responses when only six responsible people need to answer. :-)
The big danger still with those questions which others expect you to answer on behalf of the Board when the Board has never considered the matter. Sometimes they need to be told exactly that. The questioners need to be reminded that they need to find their own solutions. Perhaps this needs to be supported by a Board policy about when it will or won't interfere with the activities of a project. Personally, I think that such intervention should be kept to an absolute minimum.
By the way, from which city are you in Canada ?
I am in Richmond, a suburb of Vancouver.
Ec
US copyrights continue even after a work enters the public domain in its native jurisdiction. It is not a special US-Israel treaty but a standard US copyright issue. This is problematic on many levels.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/American_non-acceptance_of_the_rule_of_the_sh...
Birgitte SB
--- Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
We (he.wiki community) have heard there is a problem with PD images which were created after 1946.
According to Israeli law, pictures are released to public domain 50 years from the day the picture was taken. This means that images that any picture that was taken by an Israeli before 1957 is in PD in Isreal. I understand that because of some sort of convention between Israel and the US, this rule does not apply in the US (i.e. pictures that were taken between 1946 and 1957 are PD in Israel but not PD in the US.
Thus:
- Is this true? Can a copyright expert with
expertise in Israeli law and US law confirm this? 2) If this is true, the commons template http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Israel should be fixed. 3) If this is true, I wonder why commons created PD templates for each country, is the coutry that count is only the US. If an picture need to be PD in US, what does it matter if it is PD in other coutries. And if it does matter - than Template:PD-Israel should *not* be changed.
Thanks, Yoni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
In this case, I think it would be best to cancel all PD-country templates, as only the PD-US counts. Whether or not a picture is PD in a country outside the US is irrelevent - as the servers are located in the US.
Regarding Luiz's suggestion - I support it. If this is possible technically, I am willing to suggest that Wikimedia Israel set up a Wikimedia server dedicated to contain Israeli PD pictures that are not PD in other countries. Before suggesting such a move, I would suggest that a specialized law firm will confirm this PD problem between Israel and the US.
Yoni
2007/4/27, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
US copyrights continue even after a work enters the public domain in its native jurisdiction. It is not a special US-Israel treaty but a standard US copyright issue. This is problematic on many levels.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/American_non-acceptance_of_the_rule_of_the_sh...
Birgitte SB
--- Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
We (he.wiki community) have heard there is a problem with PD images which were created after 1946.
According to Israeli law, pictures are released to public domain 50 years from the day the picture was taken. This means that images that any picture that was taken by an Israeli before 1957 is in PD in Isreal. I understand that because of some sort of convention between Israel and the US, this rule does not apply in the US (i.e. pictures that were taken between 1946 and 1957 are PD in Israel but not PD in the US.
Thus:
- Is this true? Can a copyright expert with
expertise in Israeli law and US law confirm this? 2) If this is true, the commons template http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Israel should be fixed. 3) If this is true, I wonder why commons created PD templates for each country, is the coutry that count is only the US. If an picture need to be PD in US, what does it matter if it is PD in other coutries. And if it does matter - than Template:PD-Israel should *not* be changed.
Thanks, Yoni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org