The current file upload utility requires the user to "donate" the copyright to "Wikipedia". Wikipedia is no legal entity, so this doesn't make sense. It is also not in line with the way we have handled copyrights up to know for text submissions: the user retains copyright, but licenses the work under GFDL. I suggest that this be changed.
Axel
On ĵaŭ, 2002-01-31 at 12:09, Axel Boldt wrote:
The current file upload utility requires the user to "donate" the copyright to "Wikipedia". Wikipedia is no legal entity, so this doesn't make sense. It is also not in line with the way we have handled copyrights up to know for text submissions: the user retains copyright, but licenses the work under GFDL. I suggest that this be changed.
Hmm, I read it as the *file* being donated, not the copyright. Poorly worded in either case...
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Axel Boldt wrote:
The current file upload utility requires the user to "donate" the copyright to "Wikipedia". Wikipedia is no legal entity, so this doesn't make sense. It is also not in line with the way we have handled copyrights up to know for text submissions: the user retains copyright, but licenses the work under GFDL. I suggest that this be changed.
What makes it true that "we have handled copyrights up to now for text submissions" in this way (i.e., with this interpretation)? As far as I can tell, Axel, you were the first to insist, several months ago, that this was the case. If I recall correctly, Jimbo and I admitted that this might be a valid interpretation. For my part, I thought it was obvious from the beginning that writers are donating text to the project, in order for it to be distributed freely to the public at large. While I can certainly freely admit that there are other interpretations, what I can't understand is why you would think another interpretation is so clearly the correct one. I don't think we've settled the issue.
By the way, Wikipedia might soon join Nupedia as part of a Nupedia Foundation; that then would be the obvious holders of Wikipedia article copyrights.
Larry
In message Pine.LNX.4.30.0202041503460.28975-100000@ross.bomis.com, Larry San ger writes:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Axel Boldt wrote:
The current file upload utility requires the user to "donate" the copyright to "Wikipedia". Wikipedia is no legal entity, so this doesn't make sense. It is also not in line with the way we have handled copyrights up to know for text submissions: the user retains copyright, but licenses the work under GFDL. I suggest that this be changed.
What makes it true that "we have handled copyrights up to now for text submissions" in this way (i.e., with this interpretation)? As far as I can tell, Axel, you were the first to insist, several months ago, that this was the case. If I recall correctly, Jimbo and I admitted that this might be a valid interpretation. For my part, I thought it was obvious from the beginning that writers are donating text to the project, in order for it to be distributed freely to the public at large. While I can certainly freely admit that there are other interpretations, what I can't understand is why you would think another interpretation is so clearly the correct one. I don't think we've settled the issue.
The interpretation of "I, as author, hold the copyright and grant a license for wikipedia to use it under Gnu FDL" has always been my interpretation of the intellectual property transfer. I never thought I was donating text to the project when I wrote it.
One reason I might think this is that in UK copyright law (See Copyright Designs and Patent Act 1988, [CDP]), "an assignment of copyright is not effective unless it is in writing signed by or on behalf of the assignor" (section 90 CDP). I haven't done that, so in my mind, I still own the copyright; and in law too I think.
I think the view that wikipedia holds the copyright is extremely worrying. If that were the case then there is nothing to stop wikipedia making future versions closed. The Gnu FDL only restricts licensees that don't own the copyright, the copyright owner can do what they like.
I would stop writing for wikipedia if it turned that they owned copyright in the articles. I know wikipedia has a database copyright, that doesn't worry and seems only fair.
Cheers, drj
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org