[Foundation-l] re GFDL publisher credit

[Ray Saintonge]

Robert Scott Horning wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  
>
>>Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Registration is certainly nice in GFDL and most copyleft enforcement 
>>>because it sets up a minimum statutory penalty if you can prove 
>>>copyright infringement.  Otherwise you can only seek actual damages. 
>>>Note that the registration must take place before the infringement 
>>>occurs.  This is something I've discussed at length on this mailing list 
>>>before, with many individuals on this list quite against formal 
>>>registration, and deliberate obfuscation of user information that would 
>>>make such registration difficult to impossible.
>>>
>>>All I'm pointing out is that the situation right now is exactly up to 
>>>individual contributors, and you are correct, it boggles the mind to 
>>>think what is really necessary to do this enforcement.
>>>      
>>>
>>The problem with actual damages is that they are measured in monetary 
>>terms and need to be proven.  Since we all give our services for free 
>>there is no damage to be proven.  Only statutory damages make sense.  Of 
>>course anyone with a copyright interest in a work should be legally 
>>entitled to file a registration.  Those with more radical views about 
>>the nature of free content should have no business preventing others 
>>    
>>
>>from protecting their own rights.  If they want to remain anonymous that 
>  
>
>>would still be their choice.  The material that should be registered 
>>could be in the form of a data dump onto CD(s) that are sent monthly or 
>>on some other regular basis.
>>    
>>
>One of the requirements for formal registration of copyright require 
>that you document the nationality and residence (the name of the country 
>you live in is sufficient) of all copyright claimants.  The purpose of 
>this is to know what laws actually protect the content, as international 
>copyright conventions do apply and nationality does have some impact on 
>copyright protection.  
>
Registration is still not a requirement for owning copyright, only for 
seeking remedies.  The United States had to remove the registration 
requirement because international treaties forbid it.  I haven't 
investigated this, but it seems that these administrative requirements 
for registration may derive from regulations rather than statutes.  
Perhaps foreign editors can grant jurisdiction to US courts on this.  
The requested details may be impossible to untangle for a variety of 
reasons.  Author lists for every article can be provided, but the 
usefulness of those list is highly questionable.  You could take the 
approach that it is the responsibility of the US Government to primarily 
protect the interests of its own citizens both at home and abroad.  If 
some foreigner accidently gets protected that's a bonus.  Government 
forms are produced with the majority in mind.  At the time these things 
were first produced it would have been unimaginable to think that a 
publication could have many thousands of mostly unidentifiable authors.  
If you contact somebody at the copyright office who knows how to think 
outside the box, some kind of solution may be available.

>I made a request almost a year ago that Wikimedia projects allow 
>voluntary declaration of this information (I don't think it should ever 
>be compelled), together with your real legal name for this purpose.  The 
>proposal was mainly that such information could be put into the user 
>preferences section where you also put your sig and some other personal 
>details like e-mail address.  Even asking for voluntary declarations of 
>information like this was met with incredible hostility and accusations 
>that I didn't understand the WMF privacy policy.  The purpose of 
>collecting this information was specifically so I could file formal 
>copyright registration on behalf of Wikibooks users including myself.
>
I remember that.  Did you seriously expect that it would be any 
different? ;-)   It's Dilbert's cubicle on a global scale. :-)
Some obsessions with privacy verge on paranoia.  Those individuals need 
to realize that there's a downside to that. 

>BTW, the Library of Congress does not have a maximum limit of only 5 
>copyright claimants, but since the GFDL suggests the number of 5 people 
>listed, most people assume that is the most that you are permitted to 
>list as authors.  It is not, and I don't see a problem with listing 20 
>or more people, as can happen with some Wikimedia projects.  For 
>Wikibooks, that can be 20 different people with significant 
>contributions.  My reading of the GFDL is that it suggests that you 
>should list at least five different people if there were that many 
>contributors, and that meets the minimum terms of the GFDL, and not 
>necessarily even the minimum requirements for copyright law.
>
LOC may not have a maximum limit of 5, but can it handle thousands?  As 
far as all this goes GFDL is a separate issue.  A good summary of what 
you are saying is, "Many people don't know how to read."

>For the Wikijunior books and for some of the other Wikibooks, this 
>information is being collected more informally in "author" pages where 
>this information is being listed.  It is also assumed that when a 
>Wikibook is published, that this information will also be used (at least 
>the author's names) as credit for who helped put together the content. 
> Again, this is all voluntary and some people have removed their names 
>from these author pages as well for various reasons.  Even these pages 
>have been controvercial, with some cries to have them all deleted and 
>banned by policy.  This is why I say that the WMF is encouraging 
>deliberate obfusaction of user information preventing copyright 
>registration.
>
AFAIK there has only been one takedown order recently.  These should all 
be made public, and the affected authors notified, because anybody can 
file for a putback.  I don't see things as "deliberate", but there is a 
strong need for leadership at the Board level on this issue.

>At the moment, however, I don't know of any specific content for any 
>Wikimedia project that has had formal copyright registration occur.  And 
>you are correct that trying to prove damages that a free project like 
>this would be difficult at best for any monitary amount, although I 
>think a judge could still come up with at least some modest amount just 
>to prove a point that copyright violations are wrong to do, even for 
>free content.
>
I don't know that a judge would do that.  Imposing punitive damages 
without legal authority is something that could be easily reversed on 
appeal.  The statutory damages provisions in effect are what provides 
the authority.  The judge then has flexibility within the numerical 
boundaries in the law.

I know of no existing registrations either.  Perhaps the way to go would 
be to boldly go forth, listing the authors you know and adding "plus XX 
unidentified authors."  Sending one in will at least let you know if it 
gets accepted.  Beyond that, you certainly should not be the one stuck 
with the burden of the filing fees for a large number of registrations.

Ec


Ec