It sounds as if some of you are talking about hypothetical situation of
wikipedia contents used in other countries. But I think that kind of use is
happening on a daily basis.
Just to illustrate what Taw and Daniel have said:
When a Japanese Wikipedian posts an unattributed image from en: (or
somewhere else) to Japanese Wikipedia, then it seems that Japanese court can
apply Japanese law to such action and give appropriate protection to the
copyright holder - Berne Convention seems to offer a ground to give such
protection to foreigners bringing lawsuits in Japanese court. And,
importantly, Japanese courts have repeatedly denied fair use in Japanese
copyright law (even though some defendants advocated that it should exist.)
There are only more specific exemptions defined in the copyright law.
Legal technicalities aside (and please be reminded that I am not a lawyer),
moral implication of this is that for some Japanese wikipedians, fair-use is
non-free. We may some day start a project of tracking those images'
copyright status, just so that Japanese wikipedia can remain free.
I found, in particular, Erik's and mav's arguments both attractive - though
they are opposing positions.
But if images based on fair-use exist, I really hope they are unmistakably
clearly attributed.
If I can push a bit more, it would be better if fair-use texts are treated
in the same way, limited to clear quotes, not mingled with other texts.
Well, I suppose this would sound really inconvenient or impractical, but if
it doesn't happen either Japanese wikipedians or further downstream user
might have to handle that inconvenience...
cheers,
Tomos
_________________________________________________________________
Take off on a romantic weekend or a family adventure to these great U.S.
locations. http://special.msn.com/local/hotdestinations.armx
By the way, is it okay that I relicense all the images I offered
wikipedia as copyright by Anthere with permission, with a link to my
user page, instead of under gfdl ?
Because, if I am glad to offer my images under gfdl as a recognised
author, I do not agree that my images are now registered as under
copyright by Anthony DiPierro, with my name gone, perhaps for him to
make money over my work.
I will now put all my images under copyright with permission for
Wikipedia only. But can I do it with the old images as well ?
I would suggest the Ultimate Band List
(http://www.ubl.com) and Rolling Stone
(http://www.rollingstone.com) for bands, as they both
have useful profile sections. They have Alexa ratings
of 2600 and 1700 respectively, and it might help draw
people to our 'current music' articles, which are
woefully lacking and stubby.
Meelar
> Message: 3
> Date: 18 Feb 2004 12:51:00 +0100
> From: erik_moeller(a)gmx.de (Erik Moeller)
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Content partnerships
> To: wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <9366v5XxpVB@erik_moeller>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Jimbo has just appointed me "content partnership
> coordinator" for the
> Wikimedia foundation. It's a semi-official function
> which basically means
> that I try to negotiate useful relationships with
> companies or
> organizations who might in some way be interested in
> distributing our
> articles. The benefit for us: backlinks.
>
> I have tried to establish contact with Amazon.com
> and IMDB. If you have
> any other ideas for websites which might be
> interested in our articles
> about
> - books
> - movies
> - CDs
> - bands
> - people
> - places
> - unusual sex practices,
>
> especially sites getting a lot of traffic, please
> let me know. I may also
> be able to help with other Wikimedia projects, if
> there's any partnership
> potential there.
>
> I consider it my responsibility to try to establish
> working relationships.
> I am not, however, interested in coordinating
> enforcement of the FDL
> (yuck). I will work on the basis of
> Wikipedia:Copyrights in negotiating
> terms.
>
> As soon as we have some results, I will establish a
> special page on
> Wikipedia to describe these efforts.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I would strongly prefer that people not post images to wikipedia
>
>with permission *just* for Wikipedia. We're a GNU-free project,
>and we will always remain such.
>
Special:Upload should have a much more obvious statement of this than
merely a checkbox for "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file
agrees to license it under the terms of the
[[Wikipedia:Copyrights|Wikipedia copyright]]." It ought to have a
warning similar to what shows up below the box on an editing page,
without the stuff specifically oriented to text. Like this:
"All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free
Documentation License (see [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] for details). If you
do not want your contribution to be modified and redistributed at will,
then do not submit it. By submitting your work you promise you created
it yourself, or copied it from [[public domain]] resources--this does
not include most web pages. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT
PERMISSION!"
Can we get this change made, please?
--Michael Snow
Anthere wrote:
> But if I give the copyright to Wikipedia, then it is up to Wikipedia
> to ensure that its rights as copyright owner are respected ?
That is correct. But normally we only license our contributions to
Wikipedia under the GFDL, we don't actually give Wikipedia the copyright.
> If I do transfer the copyright to Wikipedia, do I still stay the author ?
> If I do, and someone claim the pictures are his, who has the right to
> say it is not true ?
First of all, you certainly remain the author. That's essentially a
factual question, not a legal question. But Tomasz correctly points out
that there is a legal concept of moral rights, part of which is the
right to have authorship recognized. It can also include the ability to
prevent distortion or mutilation of the work, and even the right to
suppress the work (for example, if you are so dissatisfied with the
picture that you don't want anybody to publish it, period).
Traditionally, US law does not recognize moral rights that are distinct
from copyright, so you would have to own the copyright to complain.
However, the Berne Convention does include a section about moral rights.
The US resists this concept, and it was one of the big hang-ups over
signing on to the Convention, so I would characterize the present legal
situation as uncertain.
Based on the terms of the GFDL, even if moral rights apply, you may be
giving up many of the restrictions on what people can do with your work.
--Michael Snow
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> But, I think that at least some people
>
>really *ought* to have a simple check on their behavior, a way for
>them to look at a number and say "Oh, I've been rude." I think some
>people are simply lacking in the social skills to know about such
>things for themselves.
>
>
I think the web-of-trust system could help check antisocial behavior
without resorting to numerical ratings. I would suggest implementing it
so that if User:Jimbo Wales adds User:Michael Snow to his list of people
he distrusts, the system automatically posts that fact on User
talk:Michael Snow. That would be a fairly clear message and should get
my attention, especially when it's followed up by others from those who
agree with Jimbo. The people that don't respond to that kind of
correction probably don't care, and will stay rude no matter what kind
of feedback system we use.
--Michael Snow
Jimbo has just appointed me "content partnership coordinator" for the
Wikimedia foundation. It's a semi-official function which basically means
that I try to negotiate useful relationships with companies or
organizations who might in some way be interested in distributing our
articles. The benefit for us: backlinks.
I have tried to establish contact with Amazon.com and IMDB. If you have
any other ideas for websites which might be interested in our articles
about
- books
- movies
- CDs
- bands
- people
- places
- unusual sex practices,
especially sites getting a lot of traffic, please let me know. I may also
be able to help with other Wikimedia projects, if there's any partnership
potential there.
I consider it my responsibility to try to establish working relationships.
I am not, however, interested in coordinating enforcement of the FDL
(yuck). I will work on the basis of Wikipedia:Copyrights in negotiating
terms.
As soon as we have some results, I will establish a special page on
Wikipedia to describe these efforts.
Regards,
Erik
Anthere wrote:
> Now, it is problematic to me, as some of these images are declared
> being from me in other places (and it is important that they are from
> me *over there*), while now, they also exist in another website,
> apparently owned by another person, and not clearly gfdl any more.
> So, my offering them under gfdl to Wikipedia (that is, normally
> preserving my authorship) is likely to hurt me indirectly in my real
> life as some one could claim being the author and having a copyright
> on it.
Offering your images anywhere, to anyone, potentially carries that risk.
The only sure way to prevent copyright infringement is never to let
anyone else get access to your stuff. For things that are released under
GFDL, you can let the person copying know that they need to comply with
the license. That's part of the reason we keep track of sites that use
Wikipedia for content. If we work with them on it, some will figure out
how to comply. For example, McFly is at least moving in the right
direction--who knows, a little more effort, and Anthony could even be a
model for GFDL compliance. For those that don't, in the worst cases we
can resort to a takedown notice.
> If I can't remove them, I suppose however that I can replace some of
> them with identical images with a gfdl license embedding in ? That
> will not make it for the ones now lost, but at least, future pictures
> and future uses will be saved ? Of course, the embedded licence can be
> removed, but it makes things harder. Can I do that ?
I don't know of anything to stop you from embedding a GFDL notice in any
jpeg or png file you upload. Or even a copyright notice, if you own the
copyright to the image. I suppose people might object to the embedding
for aesthetic reasons. You could also caption images with a copyright
notice--I believe I've seen that a few times.
> If Wikipedia itself does not try to secure its participants rights,
> how far can we go to preserve the rights we should have in our
> participation under gfdl Michael ?
For stuff that you have a copyright in, you can do whatever the law
allows to preserve your rights. Basically, you as an individual have the
same options available to deal with infringement as Wikipedia does.
Wikipedia doesn't have that much ability to protect the rights of
individual contributors, it can only protect its own rights. The most
Wikipedia could do on your behalf is maybe lead a class action suit on
behalf of all the contributors whose copyrights are being infringed.
However, I would point out that your rights as a contributor do not come
from the GFDL. They come from whatever copyright you own. The GFDL gives
other people permission, it doesn't give you as an author any rights.
--Michael Snow
The first purpose of this mailing list is to discuss ways that Brian
might help the volunteers to improve the software for wiktionary by
adding a touch of structure to the data. Brian's volunteered to do
some coding to this end, and seeks guidance and advise from the
community as to what would be desirable.
Additionally, it's about time that wiktionary had it's own mailing list.
--Jimbo
----- Forwarded message from brian suda <brian(a)suda.co.uk> -----
From: brian suda <brian(a)suda.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 15:15:21 +0000
To: wikitech-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiktionary Mailing list created
If anyone is interested in continuing a discussion about improvements, ideas,
etc. for the Wiktionary, a new mailing list has been created for just that
reason.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
cheers,
-brian
--
brian suda
http://suda.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
----- End forwarded message -----
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>>Wikipedia could turn into a place where the content is largely a
>>tasteless, watery gruel because everyone is on pins and needles to
>>avoid provoking negative responses.
>>
>>
>
>Well, that would make me very happy. This is an encyclopedia, after
>all.
>
>BrilliantProse, good writing, need not be controversial or
>antagonizing at all. A well written article can be lively,
>interesting, well-organized, etc., while at the same time in a very
>encyclopedic fashion present the facts in a sufficiently neutral
>manner that all sides to a dispute, if they are working in good faith,
>can agree that it's a good presentation.
>
>--Jimbo
>
I feel like my point is being misunderstood, or else taken out of
context. (However, no offense is taken, and no apology necessary.)
A truly NPOV article on a controversial subject would present things in
a neutral fashion, but it would not be "tasteless, watery gruel". And
that specifically because people would contribute without fear of
negative feedback. I consider that important because the perfect NPOV
article does not suddenly appear, and does not spring fully formed from
the head of its author. It results from a community process, and I
believe that process would never take place if contributors had to worry
about their feedback ratings. The danger is that we make the community
so wary that people are too timid to even discuss certain subjects,
leaving only the shallowest, definitely non-encyclopedic treatment of
controversial topics.
--Michael Snow