[Advocacy Advisors] A Proposed Amendment to the United States Copyright Act

[Geoff Brigham]

I agree.   Our policy for making such a decision may be found
here<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Association_Guideline#Collaborative_Advocacy>
(summarized
below).

I don't anticipate any issue for staff approval.

Does anybody on this list object?

If not, can someone start a quick RfC?

Collaborative Advocacy

We collaborate with another organization to take action on a particular
policy or political question.

   - *Example: Signing a petition started by the Electronic Frontier
   Foundation against Internet censorship.*

Review and Approval

   - *Staff*: General Counsel (approval), CFA (approval), Head of
   Communications (consultation), and Executive Director (approval)
   - *Community*: Advocacy Advisory Group (consultation), RfC (consultation
   if time permits), and General notice
   - *Board*: Possible consultation


On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Mathias Schindler <
mathias.schindler at wikimedia.de> wrote:

> FYI. (it is my opinion that WMF should support any effort promoting
> such an amendment to the copyright act)
>
> https://law.resource.org/pub/edicts.html
>
> TEXT OF THE PETITION
>
> To promote access to justice, equal protection, innovation in the
> legal marketplace, and to codify long-standing public policy, the
> Copyright Act of the United States, 17 U.S.C., should be amended as
> follows:
>
> “Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative
> rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar
> official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public
> policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or
> local as well as to those of foreign governments.”
>
> This language comes directly from Section 206.01, Compendium of Office
> Practices II, U.S. Copyright Office (1984). It reflects clear and
> established Supreme Court precedent on the matter in cases such as
> Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834) and Banks v.
> Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888). The law belongs to the people, who
> should be free to read, know, and speak the laws by which they choose
> to govern themselves.
>
>
>
> --
> Mathias Schindler
> Projektmanager
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
> web: http://www.wikimedia.de
> mail: mathias.schindler at wikimedia.de
>
> Ceterum censeo opera officiales esse liberandam -
> http://urheberrecht.wikimedia.de/
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>



-- 
Geoff Brigham
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6750
gbrigham at wikimedia.org

*California Registered In-House Counsel*

*This message might have confidential or legally privileged information in
it. If you have received this message by accident, please delete it and let
us know about the mistake. For legal reasons, I may only serve as an
attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal
advice to or serve as a lawyer for community members, volunteers, or staff
members in their personal capacity.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20130516/df095ec8/attachment.html>