[Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

[Anthony]

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 2009/1/10 Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
> >> 2009/1/8 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:
> >>> We discussing a move to CC-****BY****-SA, attribution is still
> >>> required. I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of
> >>> CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely clear to me
> >>> whether Original Author is, in the context of a wiki, just the latest
> >>> editor or all editors),
> >>
> >> My reading of the Attribution requirements per CC-BY-SA (4.c) in the
> >> context of a wiki is as follows:
> >>
> >> * every substantial edit is a copyrighted creative work;
> >> * every such edit must be, per the terms of the license and the terms
> >> of use of the wiki, made available under CC-BY-SA;
> >> * per the terms of that license, if the edit is originally created for
> >> the wiki, the person submitting it is its "Original Author" (while the
> >> combined work is an Adaptation per CC-BY-SA).
> >>
> >> A wiki page would therefore have multiple "Original Authors" per
> >> CC-BY-SA.
> >
> > I disagree, I don't think each edit is a work but rather each revision
> > is a work, derived from the revision before. The question is then who
> > is the Original Author of the latest revision, is it just the person
> > that made the last edit or is it everyone before (ie. are authors of a
> > work automatically authors of a work derived from it)?
>
> I don't know the answer with respect to CC-BY-SA, but I once tried to
> resolve a similar question with regards to US copyright registration.
> The answer from the Copyright Office, as I understood it, may be
> analogous.  Their answer seems to be that "a work" is defined by an
> act of publication (i.e. making available to the public), and the
> "authors" of the "work" from the point of view of registration are the
> people who contributed to it since the last act of publication.  Prior
> works still need to be identified during registration, but the prior
> authors are not given the same standing as current authors during the
> registration process.
>
> So if one were to apply those rules, each whole revision that appears
> online would be considered a "work" and the primary "author" is only
> the most recent one.
>

Depends in part on whether or not you consider online distribution to be
"publication" or "public display".  Under copyright law, "A public
performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute
publication."  And "To perform or display a work "publicly" means "to
transmit [...] a performance or display of the work [...] to the public, by
means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of
receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in
separate places and at the same time or at different times."  Sure sounds
like webserving to me.

There's at least an argument that Wikipedia articles are unpublished works
of joint authorship.  Of course, that would put a kink in the whole GFDL
thing (you could probably argue that publication under the GFDL is the only
right given to joint authors under an implicit joint authorship agreement,
though).  On the other hand, it would remove the requirement to deposit two
copies of the best edition of every single revision ever created with the
copyright office.