Daniel Mayer wrote:
Two words: PRESS RELEASE!
Seriously, once the fund drive is over we should have a press release about this and also mention the fact and result of our 'recent successful fund drive.' We should also quote Jimbo when he said that commercial encyclopedias will be out of business in 5 years if they keep doing as they have been.
I've seen that work already started on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_press_releases/Wikipedia_vs_Brockha...
I'm not entirely sure if it's a good idea to send a separate press release. We discussed this yesterday among the german wikipedians, feelings were mixed.
It's one thing to have an independent media giving wikipedia credit as a valuable encyclopedia, but we know that in many areas it's still far from being that. If we pick up the results of this test and boast about them, we will be measured by this in the future. Closed season would be over for us.
Please let's stick to "we are a project building an encyclopedia" and let the media do the job of praising us. They do it quite well, as we can see. Let's mention the c't test discreetly in future press releases (like the one about the fund raising drive), but not send a separate one.
For the german wikipedia, we are planning to mention the test results in our next press release about the publication of the wikipedia cd version.
One last important thing: If something like this happens, please don't start actions without consulting the local people involved. So far we have good contacts to the c't. But things like a full text translation of the article can seriously damage this relationship. And it would fall back to us, not the international crowd.
greetings, elian
Resending this email (which I earlier sent to foundation-l to wikipedia-l, as the main discussion seems to be ongoing there:
On 2 Oct 2004, at 17:41, Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
One last important thing: If something like this happens, please don't start actions without consulting the local people involved. So far we have good contacts to the c't. But things like a full text translation of the article can seriously damage this relationship. And it would fall back to us, not the international crowd.
greetings, elian
<AOL>I STRONGLY second that.</AOL>
Without sounding too much like a prick, reading the previous emails, where someone (IIRC) tried to argue that a translation of an existing text was an original work--
IT IS NOT!!!
U.S., E.U. and international laws are '''quite''' clear on this point. You absolutely CANNOT publish the translation of a copyrighted work w/o the original author's consent! Please DO NOT go there.
I'm seeing _a lot_ of naivety lately, as regards copyright:
1. That's a '''problem''' for the submitter (because they--not the Wikipedia--are legally fully liable for the text they are submitting to the Wikipedia).
2. It's a '''bigger problem''' for the wiki process -- because if a copyright-infringing text gets submitted and then that text sees a lot of development, it will be an absolute MESS to sort things out later. (Positions and interpretations on what to do vary from "delete everything as the successive edits are derivative works of a work that was not licensed in the first place" right through to "keep it if more than <insert arbitrary number here> percent of the sentences are different from the unlicensed original source." Legally the tendency is to argue for deleting everything which potentially scraps many, many people's hard work.)
3. It's a '''shit-has-hit-the-fan situation of absolutely stellar proportions''' if such problems arise with respect to Wikipedia PR. Because with our PR, not only does the Wikipedia likely become liable for the screw-up (instead of the submitter being liable), it also will cause the public to view us as wholesale intellectual bootleggers.
PLEASE, let's ensure that things never get so fubar.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 23:13:04 +0200, Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
where someone (IIRC) tried to argue that a translation of an existing text was an original work--
IT IS NOT!!!
As Mav wrote in response to the foundation list, noone is trying to argue this. Translations are most assuredly not original works.
"That is the question" referred to the question of how long a paraphrase can be; intervening translation was only a complicating factor. It was clear once pointed out that it wasn't worth taking any chances, and the paraphrase in question was deleted.
I'm seeing _a lot_ of naivety lately, as regards copyright:
- That's a '''problem''' for the submitter (because they--not the
Wikipedia--are legally fully liable for the text they are submitting to the Wikipedia).
Once a more formal review system is in place, and certain bits of content are flagged "reviewed" or "stable", will this continue to be true? If a piece of copyvio goes unnoticed and is included in a reviewed article, will there be liability for the reviewing group as well as for the submitter?
Sj wrote:
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 23:13:04 +0200, Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
where someone (IIRC) tried to argue that a translation of an existing text was an original work--
IT IS NOT!!!
As Mav wrote in response to the foundation list, noone is trying to argue this. Translations are most assuredly not original works.
The criterion for copyright is for creative works rather than original ones. The position of translations is ambiguous because they are derivative works. They owe their life to the original source, and the publication of a translation without permission can indeed be an infringement of copyright. Nevertheless, in a country that recognizes derivative works they are the subject of a new and additional copyright that is owned by the translator even if his translation infringed the original copyright. A person who then infringes the copyright of the translator could be infringing two copyrights at once.
"That is the question" referred to the question of how long a paraphrase can be; intervening translation was only a complicating factor. It was clear once pointed out that it wasn't worth taking any chances, and the paraphrase in question was deleted.
Paraphrases do not in themselves infringe copyright. The information is not copyrightable; only the manner of saying things may be copyright.
I'm seeing _a lot_ of naivety lately, as regards copyright:
- That's a '''problem''' for the submitter (because they--not the
Wikipedia--are legally fully liable for the text they are submitting to the Wikipedia).
Once a more formal review system is in place, and certain bits of content are flagged "reviewed" or "stable", will this continue to be true? If a piece of copyvio goes unnoticed and is included in a reviewed article, will there be liability for the reviewing group as well as for the submitter?
There is indeed a lot of naïveté in regards to copyrights, and it is abundant on both sides of the issue. Let's be realistic about it. For sure there is an initial liability on the part of the submitter, but that's an awfully tough case to establish when submitters are quasi-anonymous, or are willing to apologetically remove the offending material when the infringement is brought to their attention. The case is not made easier by the complexities of transnational issues involving the countries of the submitter, the server, and the original copyright owner. This makes talk of "full legal liability" rather hollow. The primary legal liability shifts to the Wikimedia Foundation rather early in the process -- maybe as soon as the material is substantively amended by anyone other than the original submitter.
In the event of a formal review process it is clear that the original submitter will be taken off the hook because he will have had no input into the review process unless he is also one of the reviewers. The legal liability (or more correctly the potential legal liability) will fall on the Wikimedia Foundation as a legally incorporated person. The personal legal liability of the reviewers would depend on whether they knew that there was a copyright infringement. The reviewers are likely to be scattered around the world; there would need to be some serious money involved before a copyright owner would try to get them all into the same courtroom, or start proceedings in a variety of different jurisdictions. These are all important considerations when considering how realistic a legal case can be.
A far more likely scenario is that we would be asked to remove the offending material. That would trigger a review of the material, and, if the request is justified, compliance. That would be the end of it in a great majority of cases. An irrationally litigious individual could go further, but nobody can protect himself from that eventuality. It is also possible that we may decide then that the request is NOT justified, but the number of variations there are too many to consider in this short response.
I personally believe that we could show a lot more courage in matters of copyright. There is a great deal of material out there that is technically protected by copyright, but which could be republished with impunity simply because there is no-one there to own the copyright. This does not mean that we go ahead and willy-nilly republish anything that strikes our fancy; that would be an act of stupidity. Some criteria would need to be followed. Anything that we would so republish (Wikisource being most affected) would need to state the possible problems right up front, and to state that we would remove the material if so requested by a person who establishes that he has the legal right to make such a request. If no-one makes a request for three years, the limitation period for civil copyright suits, the doctrine of laches may be applicable.
Ec
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:05:43 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I personally believe that we could show a lot more courage in matters of copyright. There is a great deal of material out there that is technically protected by copyright, but which could be republished with impunity simply because there is no-one there to own the copyright. This does not mean that we go ahead and willy-nilly republish anything that strikes our fancy; that would be an act of stupidity. Some criteria would need to be followed. Anything that we would so republish (Wikisource being most affected) would need to state the possible problems right up front, and to state that we would remove the material if so requested by a person who establishes that he has the legal right to make such a request. If no-one makes a request for three years, the limitation period for civil copyright suits, the doctrine of laches may be applicable.
This is a fascinating suggestion. I have often grumbled to myself about the difficulties of identifying copyright status for untraceable or anonymous (but not explicitly licensed) content... of course there are issues of tagging / hiding questionable content so that reusers (in print, for instance) don't get bitten for using it.
Hi,
Le Monday 4 October 2004 03:05, Ray Saintonge a écrit :
I personally believe that we could show a lot more courage in matters of copyright. There is a great deal of material out there that is technically protected by copyright, but which could be republished with impunity simply because there is no-one there to own the copyright. This does not mean that we go ahead and willy-nilly republish anything that strikes our fancy; that would be an act of stupidity. Some criteria would need to be followed. Anything that we would so republish (Wikisource being most affected) would need to state the possible problems right up front, and to state that we would remove the material if so requested by a person who establishes that he has the legal right to make such a request. If no-one makes a request for three years, the limitation period for civil copyright suits, the doctrine of laches may be applicable.
I am very interested to work on that line, and this would apply a lot for Wikicommons.
Ec
Regards, Yann
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:41:43 +0200, Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Two words: PRESS RELEASE!
Seriously, once the fund drive is over we should have a press release about this and also mention the fact and result of our 'recent successful fund drive.' We should also quote Jimbo when he said that commercial encyclopedias will be out of business in 5 years if they keep doing as they have been.
I'm not entirely sure if it's a good idea to send a separate press release. We discussed this yesterday among the german wikipedians, feelings were mixed.
Well, it would be combined with other notices for the coming week. But this professional content test (and it would not be a bad idea to commission more of the same) is more newsworthy than the successful completion of our fundraiser.
Please let's stick to "we are a project building an encyclopedia" and let the media do the job of praising us. They do it quite well, as we can see. Let's mention the c't test discreetly in future press releases (like the one about the fund raising drive), but not send a separate one.
< If we pick up the results of this test and boast about them, < we will be measured by this in the future. Closed season would be < over for us.
Modesty is never out of fashion. And if there were any chance that we would somehow stop improving, stop growing, and end up looking silly alongside the other great encyclopedias, it might be appropriate to be embarrassed that c't happened to catch us on a good day.
But they didn't just catch us on a good day. I would welcome a hundred tests like this, by people far less friendly to us than the c't experts (although I suspect that this test was at least a single-blind study). To pretend that this test was not a big deal would be to do ourselves a disservice. This is the kind of content test we want people doing, all the time, rather than inserting vandalism and seeing how long it takes for it to be reverted.
My initial post was intentionally outrageous, but is it boasting to announce the results of our first third-party "taste test"? The results speak for themselves; however gracefully we respond to this initial content test, closed season is already closing.
For the german wikipedia, we are planning to mention the test results in our next press release about the publication of the wikipedia cd version.
For when is that planned?
I hope you will discuss some of these issues - including what to title the next press release and what to emphasize in it - on the meta: page itself, with links to related discussions about the german press releases. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/PR/Content-test
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org