Hello, after the Board approved the licensing policy (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy in case anyone forgot :) ), we have written an EDP on Czech Wikipedia that allows us to use things like company logos under certain conditions (okay with US and Czech laws, ie. explicit permission needed; okay with GFDL, ie. can be nonderivative; no free image available; fair use-like rationale) and we've been using it for a while. However, I talked to pfctdayelise about our EDP today and her opinion is that the Foundation's licensing policy was targeted to "legal loopholes" like fair use or fair dealing - and as we don't have any such thing in the Czech Republic (and I'm pretty confident we don't, there have been numerous discussions about that), our EDP is invalid and we can't make any exception policy at all.
I think her interpretation is correct and we at Czech Wikipedia should revoke out EDP, but I'd like to hear more opinions, and as I don't expect any official reply, I'm trying this mailing list. So, what do you think? :)
Thanks, Michal Zlatkovsky, [[m:User:Timichal]]
Hoi, When your policy complies with the Czech law, then I would say that the policy works for you. When your policy does not work for the USA, it means that you do not grant rights for the USA (which seems logical to me anyway) and they can ask the WMF itself.
When your policy does not comply with Czech law, well yes, then you have to change your policy. Thanks, GerardM
On Dec 19, 2007 12:58 PM, Michal Zlatkovsky lahcimit@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, after the Board approved the licensing policy (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy in case anyone forgot :) ), we have written an EDP on Czech Wikipedia that allows us to use things like company logos under certain conditions (okay with US and Czech laws, ie. explicit permission needed; okay with GFDL, ie. can be nonderivative; no free image available; fair use-like rationale) and we've been using it for a while. However, I talked to pfctdayelise about our EDP today and her opinion is that the Foundation's licensing policy was targeted to "legal loopholes" like fair use or fair dealing - and as we don't have any such thing in the Czech Republic (and I'm pretty confident we don't, there have been numerous discussions about that), our EDP is invalid and we can't make any exception policy at all.
I think her interpretation is correct and we at Czech Wikipedia should revoke out EDP, but I'd like to hear more opinions, and as I don't expect any official reply, I'm trying this mailing list. So, what do you think? :)
Thanks, Michal Zlatkovsky, [[m:User:Timichal]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I have absolutely no idea what the potential legal issues you may face may be. However, I assume from your mail you already have a limited collection of images you have tagged as "fair use" (eg company logos). Unless you have lawyers or - at least - law students working on the project you might not be able to get good advice on how you should handle the issue and avoid problems.
My (purely personal) opinion is you should make an issue out of this before it becomes a problematic issue for the foundation. Approach organisations you've covered and used logos from under fair use and where coverage has been non-controversial. Discuss with groups like this how your local laws may be inappropriate for a totally free press *before* you're in conflict with them. It may not work with your legal system, but I'm not aware of any that doesn't take precedent and the like into account. If you have this history and someone who gets negative coverage decides to make an issue out of it you've already laid the groundwork to defeat their argument.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Michal Zlatkovsky Sent: 19 December 2007 12:58 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: [Foundation-l] Czech Wikipedia's EDP and WMF's licensing policy
Hello, after the Board approved the licensing policy (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy in case anyone forgot :) ), we have written an EDP on Czech Wikipedia that allows us to use things like company logos under certain conditions (okay with US and Czech laws, ie. explicit permission needed; okay with GFDL, ie. can be nonderivative; no free image available; fair use-like rationale) and we've been using it for a while. However, I talked to pfctdayelise about our EDP today and her opinion is that the Foundation's licensing policy was targeted to "legal loopholes" like fair use or fair dealing - and as we don't have any such thing in the Czech Republic (and I'm pretty confident we don't, there have been numerous discussions about that), our EDP is invalid and we can't make any exception policy at all.
I think her interpretation is correct and we at Czech Wikipedia should revoke out EDP, but I'd like to hear more opinions, and as I don't expect any official reply, I'm trying this mailing list. So, what do you think? :)
Thanks, Michal Zlatkovsky, [[m:User:Timichal]]
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Not what I meant :) There are no legal issues with our EDP. It is okay from the point of view of the Czech law, as we have the copyright holder's permission. It is also okay with US law, as we stick a fair use-like rationale to the image (even though there isn't anything like fair use in the Czech Republic). The question is, is it okay with Foundation's policy? From pfctdayelise's (and my) understanding of it, it looks like we can't use any EDP at all, as the concept of fair use/fair dealing is not present in Czech law, and the image policy depends on that concept; therefore, our current solution of having an "excuse" for the Czech law (permission) and another one for WMF (fair use-like rationale) is impossible... and I wonder whether that interpretation's correct :)
Thanks, Michal Zlatkovsky [[m:User:Timichal]]
Brian McNeil napsal(a):
I have absolutely no idea what the potential legal issues you may face may be. However, I assume from your mail you already have a limited collection of images you have tagged as "fair use" (eg company logos). Unless you have lawyers or - at least - law students working on the project you might not be able to get good advice on how you should handle the issue and avoid problems.
My (purely personal) opinion is you should make an issue out of this before it becomes a problematic issue for the foundation. Approach organisations you've covered and used logos from under fair use and where coverage has been non-controversial. Discuss with groups like this how your local laws may be inappropriate for a totally free press *before* you're in conflict with them. It may not work with your legal system, but I'm not aware of any that doesn't take precedent and the like into account. If you have this history and someone who gets negative coverage decides to make an issue out of it you've already laid the groundwork to defeat their argument.
Brian McNeil
Hi, please be warned first that I am no legal expert. And since you are asking the intent of the Wikimedia Foundation, I believe the best answer comes from someone from the Foundation speaking in their official capacity.
That said, I have two-part answers. First, the board resolution is not limited to the issue of fair use/fair dealing issues alone. In copyright laws of many countries, there are other provisions limiting or restricting the scope of copyrights. For example, I see an English translation of the Copyright Law of Czech Republic. It has some such provisions (3 and 29-39, are the ones I noticed.) Does Czech Wikipedia allow images of street arts and architectural works? Under the U.S. law, it seems that images of architectural works could be posted to a Wikipedia when the photo is taken from a public space based on sec. 120. The U.S. law just does not grant such right to the architect. But works of public art is a different story, it seems. (sec. 113 covers it, and there is a case Leicester v Warner Bros. on the distinction). Czech Wikipedia might want to allow images of works of public art based on 1) U.S. law's fair use provision and 2) sec. 33 of the Czech Copyright Act. In that case, EDP should specify what kind of conditions must be met for a Wikipedian to post such an image.
An EDP of a wikimedia project is a policy on just how much non-free (but legally okay) images and other non-text media should be accepted on the wiki. We want only free-licensed contents, but EDP defines an exception to that principle, as Klaus Graf pointed out in his post.
Second, if you ask copyright holder/author's permissions for use, and if the images are free-licensed, I see little need for EDP. It is an explicitly licensed use of the work, as opposed to use based on provisions on limitations and restrictions of copyright defined by the law.
Hope it helps.
Best,
Tomos
Tomos wrote:
Second, if you ask copyright holder/author's permissions for use, and if the images are free-licensed, I see little need for EDP. It is an explicitly licensed use of the work, as opposed to use based on provisions on limitations and restrictions of copyright defined by the law.
Regarding this - I'm not sure this is technically correct. An explicit license to Wikipedia to use content for the purposes of publication on Wikipedia is restrictive to the point that an EDP would absolutely be required. Content must be free for republication for any reason, including commercial use (in the absence of an EDP, and even with an EDP non-free content is only allowed if there is no free alternative).
Nathan
Nathan Awrich wrote:
Tomos wrote:
Second, if you ask copyright holder/author's permissions for use, and if the images are free-licensed, I see little need for EDP. It is an explicitly licensed use of the work, as opposed to use based on provisions on limitations and restrictions of copyright defined by the law.
Regarding this - I'm not sure this is technically correct. An explicit license to Wikipedia to use content for the purposes of publication on Wikipedia is restrictive to the point that an EDP would absolutely be required. Content must be free for republication for any reason, including commercial use (in the absence of an EDP, and even with an EDP non-free content is only allowed if there is no free alternative).
Nathan
Quite true. If the author/copyright holder's permissions are not that of free licensing, EDP is in order.
Best,
Tomos
Hi!
On 20 Dec 2007 01:38:09 +0900, wiki_tomos wiki_tomos@inter7.jp wrote:
Czech Wikipedia might want to allow images of works of public art based on 1) U.S. law's fair use provision and 2) sec. 33 of the Czech Copyright Act. In that case, EDP should specify what kind of conditions must be met for a Wikipedian to post such an image.
D'oh!
As pictures using freedom of panorama can be uploaded to Commons [1], I am not able to imagine we should need EDP for using them…
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
[1] [[commons:COM:FOP]], [[commons:Template:FOP]], [[commons:Category:FOP]]
Hi. I am not sure if I understand your point. The current version of the Freedom of Panorama page on Commons explains that US law does not allow works of public art to be pictorially reproduced without author's permission, the point I made.
If the Commons really allows such an image, it must be based on fair use I imagine. I thought Commons does not allow fair use image, though. Or am I missing something?
Best,
Tomos
Petr Kadlec wrote:
D'oh!
As pictures using freedom of panorama can be uploaded to Commons [1], I am not able to imagine we should need EDP for using them
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
[1] [[commons:COM:FOP]], [[commons:Template:FOP]], [[commons:Category:FOP]]
Hi!
On 20 Dec 2007 02:50:36 +0900, wiki_tomos wiki_tomos@inter7.jp wrote:
If the Commons really allows such an image, it must be based on fair use I imagine. I thought Commons does not allow fair use image, though. Or am I missing something?
Commons does not allow fair use. AFAICT (I did not really study Commons' rules on FOP) the basic principle is that you are allowed to upload FOP-based images, _if_ they were made in accordance to the laws of the respective place, i.e. you cannot upload a photo of a sculpture placed in a public place in USA (there is no FOP for sculptures in USA), but you can upload a photo of a sculpture placed in a public place in the Czech Republic (there is a generous FOP in CZ).
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
2007/12/19, Petr Kadlec petr.kadlec@gmail.com:
Hi!
On 20 Dec 2007 02:50:36 +0900, wiki_tomos wiki_tomos@inter7.jp wrote:
If the Commons really allows such an image, it must be based on fair use I imagine. I thought Commons does not allow fair use image,
though.
Or am I missing something?
Commons does not allow fair use. AFAICT (I did not really study Commons' rules on FOP) the basic principle is that you are allowed to upload FOP-based images, _if_ they were made in accordance to the laws of the respective place, i.e. you cannot upload a photo of a sculpture placed in a public place in USA (there is no FOP for sculptures in USA), but you can upload a photo of a sculpture placed in a public place in the Czech Republic (there is a generous FOP in CZ).
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
For ordinary people: FOP = Freedom of panorama http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panoramafreiheit
Michal Zlatkovsky ha scritto:
Hello, after the Board approved the licensing policy (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy in case anyone forgot :) ), we have written an EDP on Czech Wikipedia that allows us to use things like company logos under certain conditions (okay with US and Czech laws, ie. explicit permission needed; okay with GFDL, ie. can be nonderivative; no free image available; fair use-like rationale) and we've been using it for a while. However, I talked to pfctdayelise about our EDP today and her opinion is that the Foundation's licensing policy was targeted to "legal loopholes" like fair use or fair dealing - and as we don't have any such thing in the Czech Republic (and I'm pretty confident we don't, there have been numerous discussions about that), our EDP is invalid and we can't make any exception policy at all.
I think her interpretation is correct and we at Czech Wikipedia should revoke out EDP, but I'd like to hear more opinions, and as I don't expect any official reply, I'm trying this mailing list. So, what do you think? :)
Hi, the EDP on the Italian Wikipedia has more or less the same idea, expilicit permission is needed in many cases, since Italian law does not have fair use or dealing at the moment (something's changing); or, at least, the copyright exemption in Italy does not apply to Wikipedia at the moment.
Cruccone
(okay with US and Czech laws, ie. explicit permission needed; okay with GFDL, ie. can be nonderivative; no free image available; fair use-like rationale)
If explicit permission is needed, then people can't reuse the content. One of the most important things about Wikipedia, in any language, is the possibility of reuse. It may be legal, but it doesn't seem worth it to me.
On 19/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
(okay with US and Czech laws, ie. explicit permission needed; okay with GFDL, ie. can be nonderivative; no free image available; fair use-like rationale)
If explicit permission is needed, then people can't reuse the content. One of the most important things about Wikipedia, in any language, is the possibility of reuse. It may be legal, but it doesn't seem worth it to me.
The EDP is - by its nature - for unfree material that cannot be reused (or at least can only be reused on a case-by-case basis).
It isn't as simple as that. What may be fair use on Wikipedia might not be fair use on another WMF project. Eg, an image from a news agency could be F.U. for Wikipedia but not for Wikinews. This - as I understand it - is one of the reasons why EDP/Fair Use has to be per project/language.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: 19 December 2007 18:26 To: andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Czech Wikipedia's EDP and WMF's licensing policy
The EDP is - by its nature - for unfree material that cannot be reused (or at least can only be reused on a case-by-case basis).
I was under the impression that the EDP was intended for things like fair use which apply equally to reusers as to Wikipedia.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 19/12/2007, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
It isn't as simple as that. What may be fair use on Wikipedia might not be fair use on another WMF project. Eg, an image from a news agency could be F.U. for Wikipedia but not for Wikinews. This - as I understand it - is one of the reasons why EDP/Fair Use has to be per project/language.
Which is why the definition of fair use used on the English Wikipedia is far stricter than the legal definition. I think the idea is that we only use things under fair use if people reusing our content can do the same (which is why we don't accept non-commercial use only, etc. licenses).
Hi!
On 19/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think the idea is that we only use things under fair use if people reusing our content can do the same (which is why we don't accept non-commercial use only, etc. licenses).
But the point is that this is true only for reusers in USA. We have much weaker fair practice provisions in the Czech copyright law in comparison with the US fair use. Therefore, the attempted EDP of the Czech Wikipedia requires _both_ fair use acceptability, _and_ a (non-free) license for the Czech Wikipedia. US reusers can still call fair use, Czech reusers have never had that option (and won't have).
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
On 19/12/2007, Petr Kadlec petr.kadlec@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
On 19/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think the idea is that we only use things under fair use if people reusing our content can do the same (which is why we don't accept non-commercial use only, etc. licenses).
But the point is that this is true only for reusers in USA. We have much weaker fair practice provisions in the Czech copyright law in comparison with the US fair use. Therefore, the attempted EDP of the Czech Wikipedia requires _both_ fair use acceptability, _and_ a (non-free) license for the Czech Wikipedia. US reusers can still call fair use, Czech reusers have never had that option (and won't have).
Is that required? Just because the website is written in Czech doesn't make it fall under Czech jurisdiction. It's still hosted in the US, so isn't US copyright law what matters? Czech law would apply to Czech reusers, but you're saying this EDP isn't intended for them, so what point does it serve?
But the point is that this is true only for reusers in USA. We have much weaker fair practice provisions in the Czech copyright law in comparison with the US fair use. Therefore, the attempted EDP of the Czech Wikipedia requires _both_ fair use acceptability, _and_ a (non-free) license for the Czech Wikipedia. US reusers can still call fair use, Czech reusers have never had that option (and won't have).
Is that required? Just because the website is written in Czech doesn't make it fall under Czech jurisdiction. It's still hosted in the US, so isn't US copyright law what matters? Czech law would apply to Czech reusers, but you're saying this EDP isn't intended for them, so what point does it serve?
PS Unless it's Czech uploaders than fall under Czech jurisdiction. Is the explicit permission meant to protect them, rather than WMF?
On Dec 20, 2007 4:17 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If explicit permission is needed, then people can't reuse the content. One of the most important things about Wikipedia, in any language, is the possibility of reuse. It may be legal, but it doesn't seem worth it to me.
The EDP is - by its nature - for unfree material that cannot be reused (or at least can only be reused on a case-by-case basis).
The litmus test is whether someone reusing Wikimedia content, in the same or substantially similar circumstances as it is used on the Wikimedia project, would be protected by the same exemption to copyright law.
On 19/12/2007, Michal Zlatkovsky lahcimit@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, after the Board approved the licensing policy (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy in case anyone forgot :) ), we have written an EDP on Czech Wikipedia that allows us to use things like company logos under certain conditions (okay with US and Czech laws, ie. explicit permission needed; okay with GFDL, ie. can be nonderivative; no free image available; fair use-like rationale) and we've been using it for a while. However, I talked to pfctdayelise about our EDP today and her opinion is that the Foundation's licensing policy was targeted to "legal loopholes" like fair use or fair dealing - and as we don't have any such thing in the Czech Republic (and I'm pretty confident we don't, there have been numerous discussions about that), our EDP is invalid and we can't make any exception policy at all.
The Resolution says of an EDP: "a project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status."
limitations of copyright law = cases where you can legally use something copyrighted regardless of the fact it is copyrighted, and without seeking permission. If there is no Czech fair use or fair dealing or similar, then it seems to me it's not possible to have an EDP.
What I understand from talking to Timichal - At the moment, they get permission, and then claim something fair-use-like anyway. My understanding is that if you're using something under a legitimate EDP, you don't need to get permission (from a copyright holder), because it is irrelevant. Maybe it is nice, but not necessary. So either they have a legitimate EDP and can stop bothering to get permission, or they don't have a legitimate EDP, and the material under it is non-free and should be deleted anyway.
cheers Brianna
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org