[Foundation-l] Help requested on Commons copyright woes

[Ray Saintonge]

Angela wrote:

>On 7/20/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>* To what extent are we bound by local laws
>>    
>>
>Every user is bound by their own local laws. Whether the project
>decides to adhere to any of those is more of a policy issue than a
>legal one.
>
Yes.  Every contributor should accept responsibility for his own actions.

>>* Flickr allows users to change the licenses on their images with no
>>external notice. So CC-BY or CC-BY-SA images uploaded to Commons might
>>later appear to be CC-BY-NC-ND or even "all rights reserved". This is
>>an increasing problem. Obviously Flickr needs a "history" tab, but
>>until then...? (current discussion at
>>http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Flickr_allows_license_changes
>>)
>>    
>>
>The problem here is whether to trust the user who originally added a
>tag that no longer matches what is on flickr.
>
I was looking at the Register discussuions on this as they relate to 
YouTube.  They make an important point about this sort of situation:  
Withdrawing the licence is not retroactive.  Those who used the material 
before the licence was withdrawn were perfectly right to do so.  If 
YouTube transfers all its materials to a new YouTube Two the withdrawal 
may not have any effect on the new company.

>>I really feel distaste at the idea that the Foundation would avoid
>>involving itself in such questions in order to avoid legal
>>culpability.
>>    
>>
>Has anyone said the avoid Foundation is refusing to answer questions
>for that reason? I'd assumed the problem was that no one knew the
>answers, not that they did but were purposefully withholding the
>information.
>
I don't think that it's a simple matter of answering questions or not.  
That no-one knows the answers is exactly right.  At the same time there 
are probably many Wikipedians who would feel more comfortable with a 
wrong answer than no answer; that would give them an excuse to pass on 
responsibility if the occasion ever demanded it.

The whole field of copyright law is so full of pitfalls and 
uncertainties that almost any expression of legal opinion, whether by a 
lawyer or layman, can be easily challenged to the point that either 
opposite has an equal chance of prevailing.

WMF would probably do best to distance itself from these issues.  It has 
too much to lose from a wrong decision.  The fundamental premise should 
be that the uploader of material has the primary responsibility for 
establishing the copyright status of what he provides.  At the same time 
it needs to safeguard its founding principle that it is providing an 
free access resource.  I certainly have ideas for attempting to 
reconcile these concepts, but I'll save them for another time.

Ec