On 05/15/2016 08:07 PM, John P. Sadowski wrote:
That is quite troubling, given that the committee approvals were near-unanimous. Is it possible that the bill could be interpreted to apply retroactively, meaning we'd have to remove those 1048 items?
I don't see anything retroactive in the text, but I also don't see anything that would strictly prohibit state agencies and local governments from treating previous publications as subject to copyright.
I see that User:Gazebo has posted at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Proposed_l... to no discussion yet.
Any idea when the bill comes up with a vote? Wikimedia DC could possibly draft and send a letter giving Wikimedia-specific examples, or we could work with the Foundation legal team to do so.
I don't know when it can be expected to come up for a vote. I should know more about California lawmaking than I do, which is almost nothing. I've copied wikimedia-sf; maybe some local California government maven lurks there and could say.
Mike
On May 15, 2016, at 9:47 PM, Mike Linksvayer ml@gondwanaland.com wrote:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/ab-2880 "California's Legislature Wants to Copyright All Government Works"
More background at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160417/09213934197/california-assembly-l...
According to http://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/ California is one of the three most "open" regarding government works. Presumably it won't be anymore if AB 2880 becomes law.
California is one of only two U.S. states with a category under https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_domain_by_government -- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PD_California (1048 items).
I haven't investigated whether and how many of those items would be subject to copyright had AB 2880 been California law at the times of their publication.
Skimming the bill's changes to present law at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201... it seems the one or two maybe dangerous additions are these:
A public entity may own, license, and, if it deems it appropriate, formally register intellectual property it creates or otherwise acquires.
The assembly's analysis views this as a clarification, but it could open the door to widespread use (or copyright apologists would say, abuse) of copyright by local government, as the EFF says, "to chill speech, stifle open government, and harm the public domain."
(A) A state agency shall not enter into a contract under this article that waives the state’s intellectual property rights unless the state agency, prior to execution of the contract, obtains the consent of the department to the waiver.
(B) An attempted waiver of the state’s intellectual property rights by a state agency that violates subparagraph (A) shall be deemed void as against public policy.
It is not clear to me whether this addition might serve as a barrier to agencies deciding to publish material under open licenses. In the meantime, I assume it will foster such barriers in practice.
https://twitter.com/mitchstoltz/status/731282363674562560 says "[EFF]'ll probably issue an action alert, but meantime, call your state assembly member's office & ask them to oppose."
If this is indeed a threat, I wonder if there's anything Wikimedians can do to oppose it, in addition to those of us in California calling our state assembly members?
Mike
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Thanks for sharing this, Mike. Sounds like something we should discuss at the upcoming WikiSalon next Wednesday evening. I have some friends (outside the wiki world) who know California lawmaking fairly well, I will ask around a bit beforehand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bay_Area_WikiSalon,_May_2016
-Pete
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Mike Linksvayer ml@gondwanaland.com wrote:
On 05/15/2016 08:07 PM, John P. Sadowski wrote:
That is quite troubling, given that the committee approvals were near-unanimous. Is it possible that the bill could be interpreted to apply retroactively, meaning we'd have to remove those 1048 items?
I don't see anything retroactive in the text, but I also don't see anything that would strictly prohibit state agencies and local governments from treating previous publications as subject to copyright.
I see that User:Gazebo has posted at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Proposed_l... to no discussion yet.
Any idea when the bill comes up with a vote? Wikimedia DC could possibly draft and send a letter giving Wikimedia-specific examples, or we could work with the Foundation legal team to do so.
I don't know when it can be expected to come up for a vote. I should know more about California lawmaking than I do, which is almost nothing. I've copied wikimedia-sf; maybe some local California government maven lurks there and could say.
Mike
On May 15, 2016, at 9:47 PM, Mike Linksvayer ml@gondwanaland.com
wrote:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/ab-2880 "California's Legislature Wants to Copyright All Government Works"
More background at
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160417/09213934197/california-assembly-l...
According to http://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/ California is one of the three most "open" regarding government works. Presumably it won't be anymore if AB 2880 becomes law.
California is one of only two U.S. states with a category under https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_domain_by_government -- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PD_California (1048
items).
I haven't investigated whether and how many of those items would be subject to copyright had AB 2880 been California law at the times of their publication.
Skimming the bill's changes to present law at
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201...
it seems the one or two maybe dangerous additions are these:
A public entity may own, license, and, if it deems it appropriate, formally register intellectual property it creates or otherwise acquires.
The assembly's analysis views this as a clarification, but it could open the door to widespread use (or copyright apologists would say, abuse) of copyright by local government, as the EFF says, "to chill speech, stifle open government, and harm the public domain."
(A) A state agency shall not enter into a contract under this article that waives the state’s intellectual property rights unless the state agency, prior to execution of the contract, obtains the consent of the department to the waiver.
(B) An attempted waiver of the state’s intellectual property rights by a state agency that violates subparagraph (A) shall be deemed void as against public policy.
It is not clear to me whether this addition might serve as a barrier to agencies deciding to publish material under open licenses. In the meantime, I assume it will foster such barriers in practice.
https://twitter.com/mitchstoltz/status/731282363674562560 says
"[EFF]'ll
probably issue an action alert, but meantime, call your state assembly member's office & ask them to oppose."
If this is indeed a threat, I wonder if there's anything Wikimedians can do to oppose it, in addition to those of us in California calling our state assembly members?
Mike
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Wikimedia-SF mailing list Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Mike. Sounds like something we should discuss at the upcoming WikiSalon next Wednesday evening. I have some friends (outside the wiki world) who know California lawmaking fairly well, I will ask around a bit beforehand.
I'm not in the area today but for those interested there's been a bit more discussion on the publicpolicy list, where Timothy Vollmer noted:
CC wrote a post about it - https://blog.creativecommons.org/2016/05/19/california-bill/ Also, EFF has an action page up now where California residents can send a message to state reps. https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=10331
Mike
wikimedia-sf@lists.wikimedia.org