The USA Library of Congress has requested permission to include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict in their collection of Internet material concerning the crisis in Darfur.
They wish to 1. archive the page at regular intervals, and 2. publish it on their publicly accessible web site.
They completely reproduce pages for archival purposes: capturing all identifying site documentation, including URL, trademark, copyright statement, ownership, publication date http://www.loc.gov/webcapture/faq.html; so the GFDL requirements are met, but what about the trademark/logo? Who needs to give permission or refuse?
WikiMedia OTRS ticket: 2006071110012086 LC Reference: Darfur 88979 CD
The College Art Association is also asking to reuse the Wikipedia logo in a news http://www.collegeart.org/news/ article (OTRS 2006071110016751).
As far as I'm aware the board needs to explicitely approve any use of their logos. Last time it was asked for on IRC, Angela directed the user to drop a line to board@wikimedia.org, so it might be sensible to forward that to there.
On 14/07/06, Jack jackdt@gmail.com wrote:
The USA Library of Congress has requested permission to include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict in their collection of Internet material concerning the crisis in Darfur.
They wish to
- archive the page at regular intervals, and
- publish it on their publicly accessible web site.
They completely reproduce pages for archival purposes: capturing all identifying site documentation, including URL, trademark, copyright statement, ownership, publication date http://www.loc.gov/webcapture/faq.html; so the GFDL requirements are met, but what about the trademark/logo? Who needs to give permission or refuse?
WikiMedia OTRS ticket: 2006071110012086 LC Reference: Darfur 88979 CD
The College Art Association is also asking to reuse the Wikipedia logo in a news http://www.collegeart.org/news/ article (OTRS 2006071110016751). -- user:Jeandré _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 7/14/06, Jack jackdt@gmail.com wrote:
The USA Library of Congress has requested permission to include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict in their collection of Internet material concerning the crisis in Darfur.
They wish to
- archive the page at regular intervals, and
- publish it on their publicly accessible web site.
They completely reproduce pages for archival purposes: capturing all identifying site documentation, including URL, trademark, copyright statement, ownership, publication date http://www.loc.gov/webcapture/faq.html; so the GFDL requirements are met, but what about the trademark/logo? Who needs to give permission or refuse?
WikiMedia OTRS ticket: 2006071110012086 LC Reference: Darfur 88979 CD
I remember a similar request from 2004 during the Tsunami (okay, the actual request should have been from january-february 2005) from the US LOC for a collection about this. Maybe someone is able to find the ticket and how we reacted to this. As far as I am concerned, their request is fine and I consider it a shame that libraries are requested to ask for this to preserve the cultural heritage, no matter if it is on dead trees or on a DVD.
Having just met with the Library of Congress two days ago, please forward it to me directly.
-Brad
On 7/14/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/06, Jack jackdt@gmail.com wrote:
The USA Library of Congress has requested permission to include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict in their collection of Internet material concerning the crisis in Darfur.
They wish to
- archive the page at regular intervals, and
- publish it on their publicly accessible web site.
They completely reproduce pages for archival purposes: capturing all identifying site documentation, including URL, trademark, copyright statement, ownership, publication date http://www.loc.gov/webcapture/faq.html; so the GFDL requirements are met, but what about the trademark/logo? Who needs to give permission or refuse?
WikiMedia OTRS ticket: 2006071110012086 LC Reference: Darfur 88979 CD
I remember a similar request from 2004 during the Tsunami (okay, the actual request should have been from january-february 2005) from the US LOC for a collection about this. Maybe someone is able to find the ticket and how we reacted to this. As far as I am concerned, their request is fine and I consider it a shame that libraries are requested to ask for this to preserve the cultural heritage, no matter if it is on dead trees or on a DVD. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I remember a similar request from 2004 during the Tsunami (okay, the actual request should have been from january-february 2005) from the US LOC for a collection about this. Maybe someone is able to find the ticket and how we reacted to this. As far as I am concerned, their request is fine and I consider it a shame that libraries are requested to ask for this to preserve the cultural heritage, no matter if it is on dead trees or on a DVD.
I found a ticket where Jimmy forwarded the request for http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Pablo_II to OTRS (ticket 119314), but the ticket doesn't include the permission. According to the email, Jimmy gave permission for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope on 2005-04-13 by email (not thru OTRS).
This request http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict was also forwarded by Jimmy to OTRS.
As far as I'm aware the board needs to explicitely approve any use of their logos. Last time it was asked for on IRC, Angela directed the user to drop a line to board@wikimedia.org, so it might be sensible to forward that to there. -- Sean Whitton
I've forwarded it there, thanks. That was my first thought, but Jimbo forwarded it to OTRS, so I tried juriwiki-l (no response yet) before asking here.
It is important to keep the community informed about this. By making it clear on the talk page that the article is being reproduced by LoC the article may be kept to higher standards. I'm guessing the community were not informed about Pope/Tsunami? Anyway, it's good news.
On 14/07/06, Jack jackdt@gmail.com wrote:
I remember a similar request from 2004 during the Tsunami (okay, the actual request should have been from january-february 2005) from the US LOC for a collection about this. Maybe someone is able to find the ticket and how we reacted to this. As far as I am concerned, their request is fine and I consider it a shame that libraries are requested to ask for this to preserve the cultural heritage, no matter if it is on dead trees or on a DVD.
I found a ticket where Jimmy forwarded the request for http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Pablo_II to OTRS (ticket 119314), but the ticket doesn't include the permission. According to the email, Jimmy gave permission for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope on 2005-04-13 by email (not thru OTRS).
This request http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict was also forwarded by Jimmy to OTRS.
As far as I'm aware the board needs to explicitely approve any use of their logos. Last time it was asked for on IRC, Angela directed the user to drop a line to board@wikimedia.org, so it might be sensible to forward that to there. -- Sean Whitton
I've forwarded it there, thanks. That was my first thought, but Jimbo forwarded it to OTRS, so I tried juriwiki-l (no response yet) before asking here. -- Jeandré _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 14/07/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/06, Jack jackdt@gmail.com wrote:
The USA Library of Congress has requested permission to include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict in their collection of Internet material concerning the crisis in Darfur.
They wish to
- archive the page at regular intervals, and
- publish it on their publicly accessible web site.
They completely reproduce pages for archival purposes: capturing all identifying site documentation, including URL, trademark, copyright statement, ownership, publication date http://www.loc.gov/webcapture/faq.html; so the GFDL requirements are met, but what about the trademark/logo? Who needs to give permission or refuse?
WikiMedia OTRS ticket: 2006071110012086 LC Reference: Darfur 88979 CD
I remember a similar request from 2004 during the Tsunami (okay, the actual request should have been from january-february 2005) from the US LOC for a collection about this. Maybe someone is able to find the ticket and how we reacted to this. As far as I am concerned, their request is fine and I consider it a shame that libraries are requested to ask for this to preserve the cultural heritage, no matter if it is on dead trees or on a DVD.
It's the major problem with web archiving - if you get 10% response you're lucky. Most have grudgingly accepted they have to go with "archive on spec" and take down afterwards if there's a complaint. I strongly, strongly suggest we figure out a way to have a blanket permissions policy for this sort of thing; it's exactly what we want to encourage, though there's generally less need to archive us than with most people...
Whilst I remember, the rather cunning trick developed to get around permissions (at least for the biggest web archivers, the national-level people), is to quietly redefine legal deposit, so that the deposit libraries have the right to make and store copies of any material published to the web in their jurisdiction. Defining "jurisdiction" is fun, of course, but they seem to have knocked something together; France is working on theirs, the UK has passed the enabling legislation but hasn't put it into force yet, and I think Denmark's got it up and running.
(I was lucky enough to attend a one-day conference on internet archiving - it was a bit accidental, we hadn't quite realised it was directed at the big players - which was remarkably interesting. It's going to be a fun field to watch)
You're absolutely right; as the Internet gets bigger and more and more content is written, archival services are going to become more powerful as people want to look for stuff that someone else has pointed them at - the idea has been around for sometime with search engine caches and the Wayback Machine, but it will be something interesting to watch.
I think you're right on just archiving on site in order to avoid difficulties, but right now they need to have that permission as soon as possible and understand that they can have it again, which it'd be good if Brad dealt with for us.
Brad: Have your got a hold of the e-mail, or do you still need it to be forwarded?
On 14/07/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/07/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/06, Jack jackdt@gmail.com wrote:
The USA Library of Congress has requested permission to include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict in their collection of Internet material concerning the crisis in Darfur.
They wish to
- archive the page at regular intervals, and
- publish it on their publicly accessible web site.
They completely reproduce pages for archival purposes: capturing all identifying site documentation, including URL, trademark, copyright statement, ownership, publication date http://www.loc.gov/webcapture/faq.html; so the GFDL requirements are met, but what about the trademark/logo? Who needs to give permission or refuse?
WikiMedia OTRS ticket: 2006071110012086 LC Reference: Darfur 88979 CD
I remember a similar request from 2004 during the Tsunami (okay, the actual request should have been from january-february 2005) from the US LOC for a collection about this. Maybe someone is able to find the ticket and how we reacted to this. As far as I am concerned, their request is fine and I consider it a shame that libraries are requested to ask for this to preserve the cultural heritage, no matter if it is on dead trees or on a DVD.
It's the major problem with web archiving - if you get 10% response you're lucky. Most have grudgingly accepted they have to go with "archive on spec" and take down afterwards if there's a complaint. I strongly, strongly suggest we figure out a way to have a blanket permissions policy for this sort of thing; it's exactly what we want to encourage, though there's generally less need to archive us than with most people...
Whilst I remember, the rather cunning trick developed to get around permissions (at least for the biggest web archivers, the national-level people), is to quietly redefine legal deposit, so that the deposit libraries have the right to make and store copies of any material published to the web in their jurisdiction. Defining "jurisdiction" is fun, of course, but they seem to have knocked something together; France is working on theirs, the UK has passed the enabling legislation but hasn't put it into force yet, and I think Denmark's got it up and running.
(I was lucky enough to attend a one-day conference on internet archiving - it was a bit accidental, we hadn't quite realised it was directed at the big players - which was remarkably interesting. It's going to be a fun field to watch)
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thank you to the several of you who contacted me offlist about this.
Danny, mindspillage, gmaxwell, and I met in DC with the Library of Congress folks who are responsible for the digital harvesting and web archival functions. LoC is a big place, and the folks we met with coordinate a lot of different elements.
One of the folks pulled out a folder which included a sheaf of the emails that end up in OTRS. She passed one over to me and was explaining how the curatorial folks are interested in including a specific page or set of pages as part of a discrete topic, etc. and before she was done speaking I had written at the bottom in large letters in a blue pen, "BLANKET PERMISSION GRANTED" s/BP and all that.
That there would be a moment's hesitation to cooperate fully with the Library of Congress is beyond my comprehension. I only regretted that we hadn't had an opportunity to meet with them earlier.
Working with LoC will likely be a two-way street. They have 40 TB (that's terabytes - 10 million items) of digital collection which is of great interest to us. They also are interested in the full archival approach, given what the projects have become as part of the American internet phenomenon. How that will be accomplished is still being discussed and will involve several different elements within LoC.
Part of the reason I took this job was to be able to sit across the table from other organizations and do something for the betterment of the projects. Largely, such ideas of working together has been stifled by a simple lack of time and bandwidth from board members and Jimmy. I'm glad that we are moving in this direction.
Oh, and we're going to get the whole digital archive of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum too. =) Thanks to Danny Wool.
Hoi, Can I understand that this permission for using our content can be seen as a precedent for similar organisations like the Library of Congress.. organisations like the Koninklijke Bibliotheek .. ?? ( http://www.kb.nl/index-en.html ) Thanks, GerardM
On 7/15/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you to the several of you who contacted me offlist about this.
Danny, mindspillage, gmaxwell, and I met in DC with the Library of Congress folks who are responsible for the digital harvesting and web archival functions. LoC is a big place, and the folks we met with coordinate a lot of different elements.
One of the folks pulled out a folder which included a sheaf of the emails that end up in OTRS. She passed one over to me and was explaining how the curatorial folks are interested in including a specific page or set of pages as part of a discrete topic, etc. and before she was done speaking I had written at the bottom in large letters in a blue pen, "BLANKET PERMISSION GRANTED" s/BP and all that.
That there would be a moment's hesitation to cooperate fully with the Library of Congress is beyond my comprehension. I only regretted that we hadn't had an opportunity to meet with them earlier.
Working with LoC will likely be a two-way street. They have 40 TB (that's terabytes - 10 million items) of digital collection which is of great interest to us. They also are interested in the full archival approach, given what the projects have become as part of the American internet phenomenon. How that will be accomplished is still being discussed and will involve several different elements within LoC.
Part of the reason I took this job was to be able to sit across the table from other organizations and do something for the betterment of the projects. Largely, such ideas of working together has been stifled by a simple lack of time and bandwidth from board members and Jimmy. I'm glad that we are moving in this direction.
Oh, and we're going to get the whole digital archive of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum too. =) Thanks to Danny Wool. -- Brad Patrick General Counsel & Interim Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. bradp.wmf@gmail.com 727-231-0101 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org