The appropriate response to this might be a Quebec Wikisource project (or, pick another French-speaking location, with a very non-French copyright policy which is more friendly to us in this circumstance).

It seems then that there is a question of jurisdiction involved.  It has been my long held understanding that the Wikimedia projects have operated under the laws of the United States, and that WMF has been consistent in its view that chapters are not responsible for the contents of the projects. Why then do we now compromise this by relying on what the French courts might say if the takedown notices are issued under US law? Counter-notices would also be produced under US law.  There is no requirement that the person who files a counter-notice be the same person who posted the original material.  The original takedown notice needs to be a public document in order to enable any person considering a counter-notice  to form the required good faith belief that the material was taken down because of a mistake or misidentification, or to challenge whether the takedown notice was compliant with all the requirements of such a notice.  Thus I would suggest that the notices are not privileged in the way that other correspondence or discussions would be. I also needs to be pointed out that several of the authors in question died before 1923, and, unless we are dealing with posthumous works, only France's unique adjustment for the time of the wars would keep them protected there. In the absence of a reconsideration by the WMF of some of these takedowns I agree that counter-notices.would be a useful approach.  To spread the work this could be spread among several people, each electing jurisdiction in a different judicial district. O:-) Wikilivres is an option that has already been mentioned, and is probably the quickest to implement. Wikisource.ca could also be used.  Eventually it would be transferred to Wikimedia Canada. For now, with that domain being in my possession, it would take only choosing a suitable webhost and some technical assistance before it is up and running. Ray

On 7 June 2010 19:21, Ryan Kaldari<rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: The claim "The Foundation is required by law to comply with such notices even if they are spurious" isn't correct. I assume you meant to say "The Foundation is required by law to comply with such notices even if they are spurious if it doesn't want to lose it's safe harbour" and even there I'm not sure the loss of safe harbour status would be universal.

geni wrote: I have just changed the word "such" in the above to "validly formulated". Unless the notice complies with all the elements required by the law it is not a valid notice. A notice would include "A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." There is an interesting question that comes out of this discussion: Is a take-down notice a necessary pre-condition to issuing a counter-notice? I see nothing in the law making this a requirement. The only thing that seems to support it is a kind of popular logic. Many things are removed by admins in what they believe to be a good-faith compliance with the strict wording of the law. There is often no mechanism for appealing legal interpretations within the community. As an example consider an orphan work last published in the United States more than seventy years ago. It would at first glance appear to qualify for the shorter libraries and archives rule for republication. When it appears at wikisource there is a discussion that results in the material being removed as a copyright violation. The actual rights owner or his legal agents have never been a part of the conversation. In my analysis it would be perfectly correct to issue a counter-notice. The claim that there was a mistake would be simply based on the fact that there was no valid takedown notice. If we are talking about an orphan work there would be nobody to begin the kind of legal action envisioned. If there was no formal takedown notice the Foundation clearly cannot notify that person, and would be obliged to restore the material within the usual time frame. The case of a seventy-plus year old orphan work is just one example where this could be a useful procedure. Ray _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Ray Saintonge wrote: And how are you determining that a work is orphaned? What JuJU do you have to declare that a work is free to use commercially?

Ray Saintonge wrote: That's why I asked how you are going to go about reliably ascertaining that a work is orphaned. Just because a work hasn't be republished over a period of time is no guarantee that not a reliable guide to it being orphaned. The creator may not want it to be republished during his or her lifetime. The creators estate may similarly not want it republished, or they may not even want it republished in digital form.

By adding the work to wikisources you are unilaterally adding a license declaring that it is free to use commercially. Which is regardless of the actually wishes of the actual copyright owner as you simply do not know what the copyright owner wants.

I mean what supernatural power are you in possession of that enables you to strip copyright from work and declare it free to use?

It seems then that there is a question of jurisdiction involved. It has been my long held understanding that the Wikimedia projects have operated under the laws of the United States, and that WMF has been consistent in its view that chapters are not responsible for the contents of the projects. Why then do we now compromise this by relying on what the French courts might say if the takedown notices are issued under US law?

requirement that the person who files a counter-notice be the same person who posted the original material. The original takedown notice needs to be a public document in order to enable any person considering a counter-notice to form the required good faith belief that the material was taken down because of a mistake or misidentification, or to challenge whether the takedown notice was compliant with all the requirements of such a notice. Thus I would suggest that the notices are not privileged in the way that other correspondence or discussions would be.

If you can link in your notifications to a handy guide to contesting a DMCA takedown notice, that would probably answer the concerns in this thread. It's clear that people weren't sure if they could re-add things at all, ever, after a takedown notice, without express WMF permission. It's clear to you, but not to the non-lawyers who nevertheless know what a bogus claim copyright is. (And I know the WMF isn't their lawyer, but I'm sure high-quality guides to contesting takedown notices exist.)