[Foundation-l] re GFDL publisher credit

[Anthony]

On 7/14/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
> >>I presume that with "optionally" you are referring to WMF retaining the
> >>option to sue or not sue based on the circumstances of the situation,
> >>and not that each editor has an option about naming WMF as agent ...
> >>sometimes.  The alternative would only create more confusion when the
> >>WMF's right to pursue the matter comes up.  On the other hand, it would
> >>be ridiculous to demand that WMF pursue with vigour every bit of
> >>perceived copyvio.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >What I'm saying is that if the WMF requires me to give it the right to
> >enter into copyright lawsuits on my behalf, I won't ever contribute
> >anything to Wikipedia or any of the other projects again.  (I suppose
> >I'd make an exception for those things that I'm willing to give to the
> >public domain).
> >
> >I don't want the WMF to have the option to sue or not sue based on the
> >circumstances of the situation.  I obviously can't stop others from
> >giving them this right, but I won't give it to them for my own
> >content.
> >
> >Anthony
> >
> >
> I hope that you are correct and I am wrong in a concern about the lack
> of a copyright over Wikimedia project content by the WMF.  I can't
> possibly envision all of the situations that real life might bring up,
> and I've seen over the years too many unusual situations to be able to
> even predict just what might be an issue in the future that would
> require a WMF copyright claim on project content.  It just seems as
> though the dismissal of claim of copyright hasn't been completely
> thought through, nor is this denial of claim formal either.
>
> What I am suggesting is that if the WMF has a copyright claim on project
> content (not necessarily exclusive claim, which is a different issue),
> there are both good and bad legal points to be made about what the
> consequences of that copyright claim might be, as is also the case of a
> denial of copyright claim entirely.

Actually, I think the WMF most likely *does* have its own independent
claim of copyright on project content, which is why I have asked them
to formally and explicity disclaim any such interest (assuming Danny
is correct that they don't want it).  But any lawsuits the WMF enters
into on its own behalf would, I think (IANAL), require the WMF to have
its own independent standing.  Now this is complicated by the fact
that the GFDL has that (annoying, IMO) automatic termination clause
(section 9), but I would like to think that a judge wouldn't let the
WMF sue me because I, for instance, left out User:Wik from an author
list.

Anyway, my content, which I contribute, is copyrighted by me, and if
someone takes only that content and no one elses than I only I have
the right to sue over the "misuse" of it.  If someone wants to take my
content (and the content of others like me) and use it in a CC-by-SA
work, for instance, I'm not going to sue them, even though that
technically violates the GFDL.  Presumably the WMF wouldn't sue them
either, but I can imagine situations in which the WMF would be likely
to sue and I wouldn't.  If the WMF does have a copyright interest in
Wikipedia, it is likely quite easy to separate out those parts and
still use the rest, at least for something on the level of a small
subset of the overall collection.

Anthony

> Often some organizations will
> assume liability on behalf of their members, especially volunteers, for
> official activities of that organization.  The American Red Cross and
> the Boy Scouts of America are two organizations I know of that do this
> for their volunteers.  As a volunteer scouter, if I get sued because of
> my activities when involved with working with youth, the Boy Scouts will
> have their legal representatives consult with me over the situation and
> defend me in court.  There are official policies and such that must be
> followed, and I have to convince them that I was following those
> polices, but the safty net is there to help me volunteer.  I don't know
> how far the WMF would go to defend project contributors who are acting
> in good faith and follow project and WMF policies to the best of their
> ability.  I hope I never find out.
>
> --
> Robert Scott Horning