http://www.publaw.com/joint.html
Wikipedia is a clear case of co-authorship, and
Bomis is not only the publisher but a co-author, since
its employees are authors. Joint authorship standards assert
that any co-author may claim authorship over the entire work,
even if that author has only contributed to one particular
section.
In other words, any author (including Bomis) can sue in the
case of infringement of any article in Wikipedia, even if they
didn't contribute to that particular article.
The statement that Bomis is a co-author assumes that Wales &
Sanger are working for hire, which is automatically the case
unless they have an explicit agreement otherwise.
Also, as has previously been discussed, copyright is
not transferrable without a signed contract, even
if there's a checkbox upon initial submission.
(see http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html#toc)
I have no idea how damages would he dealt with. Probably
injunctions is just about all that could be sued for.
Hey, I was just thinking today about how quickly we're
writing new articles and I was wondering if anyone
(looks around for mathematicians/statisticians) could
calculate the exponential curve for the growth of
wikipedia and based on that try to guesstimate
travelling at the same exponential speed when we will
hit the 100,000 article mark. There's your math
homework for the day, brought to you by Wikipedia.
Hey, and no comments about my degree in mathematics,
k...?
Thanks,
Chuck
=====
Venu al la senpaga, libera enciklopedio
esperanta reta! http://eo.wikipedia.com/
====
Junuloj! Filadelfio, Usono 15an-17an de Februaro
http://unumondo.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Filadelfia_JES
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
I have many times at work wished for the ability to ban vandals. Instead I just go along as anonymous IP unvandalizing. More productive than sleep, I guess.
KQ
You Wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Tuxisuau wrote:
>
>> By the way, i truly need help with the catalan wikipedia... see
>> meta.wikipedia.com. Now i have trolls too writing stupid jokes instead
>> of articles :(.
>
>For this, I think we need to designate a *small* number of trusted
>individuals to ban the IP numbers of the vandals, and we need to draw up
>some broad *practical* guidelines about what a "bannable offense" is that
>people on the non-English Wikipedias can use. (*Please* let's not get
>into a debate about the latter right now. I and others who are more
>interested in doing *work* for Wikipedia have more important things to do
>with our time than get into such a debate--you know, things like getting
>the website running. At some point, we will have that debate, though.)
>
>--Larry
>
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>0
I was not clear. Those who wrote content would have standing to sue, as
would Bomis, because the writers own the copyright to the texts, and Bomis
owns the copyright to the collection.
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Sanger
To: Mark Christensen
Cc: ''wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com' '
Sent: 2/6/02 7:11 PM
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Copyrights
Now, Jimbo, do you agree with that? It's "those who wrote the content"
who would have the legal standing to sue if, for example, Microsoft were
to make an altered version of Wikipedia and try to copyright and sell
it?
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Mark Christensen wrote:
> I want to publically apologize, I intended that last message to go
directly
> to Larry, not to the list. I'll try to discuss the issue with Larry
offline
> untill we at least both understand what the other is trying to say.
>
> Also, I agree, the issue of concensus is clearly of secondary
importance to
> understanding what acutally is the case, regardless of what anybody
thought
> in the past.
>
> In the mean time, let me answer Larry's question briefly.
>
> I don't think anybody could sucessfully sue, because we have a strong
> argument that the wikipedians page fulfills the FDL authorship
requirement.
> But it would be the copyright holders (those who wrote content) who
would
> have the legal standing to sue if there were in fact an actuall
violation.
>
> Yours
> Mark
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Sanger
> To: 'wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com'
> Sent: 2/6/02 6:35 PM
> Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Copyrights
>
> I don't see that there has been the consensus you mention. Frankly, I
> don't care if there has been, because I'm not arguing with you, I'm
> asking
> for clarification, for pete's sake! Sheesh!
>
> OK, let me put my confusion a different way, because I still don't
> understand:
>
> WHO has the right to sue, and FOR WHAT do they have that right?
>
> Larry
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
While we're on the subject of copyright notices, a little question about
the copyright assertion on the upload page. Currently it reads:
[ ] I hereby affirm that this file is *not copyrighted*, or that I own
the copyright for this file and donate it to Wikipedia.
Which has been questioned as ambiguous as to whether the *use* or the
*copyright* of the file is being donated. A revised version was just
checked into the code in the CVS repository which reads:
[ ] I hereby affirm that this file is *not copyrighted*, or that I own
the copyright for this file and place it under GPL licence.
Now, I'm assuming that the "GPL" is a typo for "GFDL", which can be
easily corrected before the change goes online. With that in mind, can
we all agree that the new message is sufficiently clear and correct? If
not, what ought it to say?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
I think this is exactly the issue in question.
Are we donating the copyrights to bomis or not?
Regardless of what we decide on the issue, unless wikipedia becomes a legal
entity the text will have to be changed. If we decide to donate copyright,
the text should read something like:
[ ] "I own the copyright to this file, and I hearby assign it to Bomis,
inc."
Then there should be an included check box which says:
[ ] "This file is in the public domain."
If we decide not to assign copyright to bomis, it should read like the new
text and say:
[ ] "I hereby affirm that this file is in the public domain, or that I own
the copyright for this file and make it avalable under GNU FDL."
-----Original Message-----
From: Brion Vibber
To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com
Sent: 2/6/02 7:13 PM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Copyright notices
While we're on the subject of copyright notices, a little question about
the copyright assertion on the upload page. Currently it reads:
[ ] I hereby affirm that this file is *not copyrighted*, or that I own
the copyright for this file and donate it to Wikipedia.
Which has been questioned as ambiguous as to whether the *use* or the
*copyright* of the file is being donated. A revised version was just
checked into the code in the CVS repository which reads:
[ ] I hereby affirm that this file is *not copyrighted*, or that I own
the copyright for this file and place it under GPL licence.
Now, I'm assuming that the "GPL" is a typo for "GFDL", which can be
easily corrected before the change goes online. With that in mind, can
we all agree that the new message is sufficiently clear and correct? If
not, what ought it to say?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Now, Jimbo, do you agree with that? It's "those who wrote the content"
who would have the legal standing to sue if, for example, Microsoft were
to make an altered version of Wikipedia and try to copyright and sell it?
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Mark Christensen wrote:
> I want to publically apologize, I intended that last message to go directly
> to Larry, not to the list. I'll try to discuss the issue with Larry offline
> untill we at least both understand what the other is trying to say.
>
> Also, I agree, the issue of concensus is clearly of secondary importance to
> understanding what acutally is the case, regardless of what anybody thought
> in the past.
>
> In the mean time, let me answer Larry's question briefly.
>
> I don't think anybody could sucessfully sue, because we have a strong
> argument that the wikipedians page fulfills the FDL authorship requirement.
> But it would be the copyright holders (those who wrote content) who would
> have the legal standing to sue if there were in fact an actuall violation.
>
> Yours
> Mark
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Sanger
> To: 'wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com'
> Sent: 2/6/02 6:35 PM
> Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Copyrights
>
> I don't see that there has been the consensus you mention. Frankly, I
> don't care if there has been, because I'm not arguing with you, I'm
> asking
> for clarification, for pete's sake! Sheesh!
>
> OK, let me put my confusion a different way, because I still don't
> understand:
>
> WHO has the right to sue, and FOR WHAT do they have that right?
>
> Larry
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
I agree, the issue of concensus is clearly of secondary importance
to understanding what acutally is the case, regardless of what anybody
thought in the past.
In the mean time, let me answer Larry's question briefly.
I don't think anybody could sucessfully sue, because we have a strong
argument that the wikipedians page fulfills the FDL authorship
requirement. But it would be the copyright holders (those who wrote
content) who would have the legal standing to sue if there were in fact
an actuall violation.
Because the text is licenced under the FDL, which the copyright holder
has agreed to, he or she would have no standing to sue unless someone
broke that contract.
Yours
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Sanger
To: 'wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com'
Sent: 2/6/02 6:35 PM
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Copyrights
I don't see that there has been the consensus you mention. Frankly, I
don't care if there has been, because I'm not arguing with you, I'm
asking
for clarification, for pete's sake! Sheesh!
OK, let me put my confusion a different way, because I still don't
understand:
WHO has the right to sue, and FOR WHAT do they have that right?
Larry
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I assume this is the post you intended for me to refute. I can't. I agree
you THOUGHT the contents where assigned to Bomis. This makes no difference.
The legal position I hold is that unless I have specifically, in writing,
assigned copyright to somebody they do not hold copyright. When I've
published in literary magazines, I generally refuse to sign any paper which
assigns copyright to the publisher, and will only sign limited use licenses.
The FSF requires a paper document on file assigning copyright to them to be
on file at their offices to accept a patch. It may be that now there's a
way to attach a digital signature (which legally can be as simple as
checking a box in a web page form) to some text assigning copyright to bomis
rather than requiring a signed sheet of paper. But regardless, wikipedia
has not done this in the past, and apart from specific verbiage assigning
copyright to bomis it will be maintained by the author of the work in
question. (The FSF objects to click through licenses, so their stance on
paper signatures may be the result of this.)
If you have a specific REASON to believe that something in the language of
the FDL, or in the wording of the submission text on an edit page actually
does function to inform me specifically that I no longer maintain copyright
to my work, then I'd be glad to refute that too.
Perhaps what you are trying to say it that you believed that Bomis released
the contents of the wikipedia under the FDL, and could only do so if the
contributors had already assigned copyright to Bomis. This however is as
far as I can tell false, the text of the submission says that contributors,
by submitting their text, are licensing it under the FDL. There is nothing
about copyright assignment there.
What Axel, Jimbo, and I are saying is that wikipedia gets to use a
contributors work only because that contributor licensed it to wikipedia
(and everybody else) under the FDL. The contributor owns that piece of
work, and can sell it under a different license, but he or she cannot stop
others from using it as long as they comply with the terms of the original
license (the FDL). This means that I could put the draft of a book on
presocratic philosophers on the wikipedia, and then turn around and sell
that book to Oxford press, granting them special rights not offered under
the FDL.
What Bomis OWNS is the copyright on the collection, just as a magazine can
own the copyright on the collection of works in the magazine while the
contributors retain ownership of the individual works in the collection. In
this case the magazine has a license to use the contributors works under
specific circumstances, but the contributors could not get together and
create a copy of the magazine for resale -- even if they collectively own
all of the pieces in the magazine.
Overall, I think you've made to main points:
1) There has been no agreement about the issue of copyright assignment, and
Axel's interpretation is just one among many.
2) It is possible to interpret the text of the FDL and the submission notice
on the edit page as assigning copyright to Bomis.
I believe I've shown that at least, myself, Lee, Axel, and Jimbo have
believed that Axel's interpretation was correct, and that there is evidence
on the mailing list going back to the middle of last year that this was the
primary position voiced during that time. I looked at my archive of
messages which only goes back to Aug 2002, and found no significant
alternative expressed.
I also believe that Axel has asked a valid question. If you believe that
somehow we have actively assigned copyright of our work to Bomis, can you
provide evidence of that, or explain FROM THE TEXT of the submission notice
or the FDL, how you have arrived at this conclusion? I believe that you
cannot, and that your belief that this was the case is not legally binding
on me, as from the moment I first arrived at wikipedia I have assumed that
this was not the case. Apart from specific text assigning copyright, I
retain it. That is the law. And this makes wikipedia like Linux, and most
other open source projects, in that the individual contributors maintain
copyright on their work.
I hope this explains it well enough, I think we aren't connecting
conceptually on the issue, and I'd be more than happy to try to explain my
understanding of the facts in a different way, or to defend anything you
believe to be controversial in the above statement.
Yours
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Sanger [mailto:lsanger@nupedia.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:09 PM
To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Copyrights
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> It is my understanding that copyright to everything in Wikipedia
> belongs to the contributors, who are releasing it under the GNU FDL.
I thought *Bomis* released *the contents of Wikipedia* under the GNU FDL,
in any case; so then each individual contributor first must release their
contributions to Bomis under the same license? This seems to be what
several of you have been getting at.
I am not convinced. I'll have to write more later, when I have time.
Larry
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hi all,
I just commited a huge change to the CVS repository. The "specialPages.php"
file, which contained a lot of functions and was about 64K (!) long, is now
converted into several small files, all starting with "special_".
This has some advantages:
* As only the need file is now loaded by the PHP compiler (instead of the
whole thing, as it was before), compilation times will drop dramatically
* It is easier to change a single function, as the propability of two people
editing the same file at the same time is reduced
* It is much more easy to read now
* Update/commit times are much shorter ;)
Everyone, please checkout this version. Do not commit any changes you might
have made to "specialPages.php" since your last update, but save them
somewhere else, update your local repository, then insert the changes into
the specific file.
As "specialFunctions.php" could only be included at four points in the whole
software (three of them in wiki.phtml), chances are that there will be no
bugs resulting from this structural change. Try it out anyway, just to make
sure.
Jimbo, update ASAP ;)
Magnus