[Foundation-l] PD-art and official "position of the WMF"

[Luiz Augusto]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Matthew Flaschen <
> matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> > Supporters of broad use of PD-art outside of the U.S. have seized on a
> > statement by Erik Möller that, "To put it plainly, WMF's position has
> > always been that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain
> > works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary
> > represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain." and called
> > it the "position of the WMF"
> > (
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#The_position_of_the_WMF
> > )
> > and "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation"
> > (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-art).
> >
> > In my opinion, this is mistaken on many levels.  Regardless of his
> > intentions, Erik Möller does not have the authority to speak for the
> > WMF.  If the board does /intend/ to make this statement, a binding
> > resolution would be a much better means.
> >
> > This choice of interpretation involves deliberately ignoring the current
> > legal climate in certain countries outside the U.S., and I believe that
> > is a significant departure at Commons.
> >
> > I am asking the board to step in and provide clarity on this issue in
> > particular, and the ways they will and will not communicate their views
> > on important issues in general.
> >
>
> Adding commons-l as a CC as this clearly involves the commons community,
> and
> should have included that CC to start. Lets all try to include commons-l on
> future replies.
>
> Erik is deputy director, and he, Sue, Mike Godwin or the board itself I
> believe is entitled to make such a statement. Are you simply asking for the
> board to endorse or not endorse it?
>
> - Joe
>

Back in 2004, Jimmy Wales has stated:

*I officially pronounce that as of June 30, 2004, content which we are
using _solely_ by virtue of non-free licenses should be removed from
Wikipedia.*[1]

In 2007, a resolution regarding it has announced:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution:Licensing_policy&action=history

So, yes, there is a need to an official statement. Erik and Mike have given
theirs *opinions*. If Wikimedia Foundation doesn't need to have official
statements regarding subjects like this, the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't
need to have a Board of Trustees (since everyone can assert anything) and
hundreds of volunteers don't need to waste your time translating gazillions
of pages related to the Board elections expecting that the Foundation never
given controversial rulings that can broke copyleft things in some contries.

[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-April/012156.html