[WikiEN-l] Re: disclaimer at the bottom of pages

[Michael Snow]

Angela wrote:

>The text is from [[MediaWiki:History copyright]]. The text on the
>English Wikipedia was added by Jamesday last year following a
>discussion on this mailing list where Tim made the addition to the
>history footers possible. See
>http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-June/013706.html
>
>There is also related discussion at
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Terms_of_use#Title_17
>
>Information is also at
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Page_history which states the
>Wikimedia Foundation's official view on this matter. See this diff
>which Anthere and Jimmy both agreed to lasy July  -
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Page_history&diff=4805756&oldid=4516125
>  
>
I'm puzzled as to who came up with the idea that 17 USC 108 applies to 
page histories. The section applies to "libraries and archives", but I 
think it's a very strained reading to try and say it has anything to do 
with Wikipedia.

Section 108 makes several references to premises, which suggests to me 
that it has in mind libraries and archives as physical facilities in 
"meatspace". Also, it limits reproduction/distribution to a single copy 
(three for unpublished works). If we have copyright infringements in 
page history, in many cases there will be more than one copy; the 
violation may not have been discovered until a number of revisions passed.

The application of this section is quite limited, and I do not think we 
should be relying on it. Congress apparently intended this section to 
cover things like preservation or replacement of documents, and 
interlibrary loans of excerpts or out-of-print materials. The notes for 
this section are instructive:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000108----000-notes.html 


While I understand the concern about potentially infringing materials in 
page histories, I don't think it warrants a special disclaimer. Since 
every revision of an article is arguably licensed separately under the 
GFDL, it would therefore require a statement that the GFDL applies. The 
current software message does not satisfy that. I think it would be 
better to use the same message that appears on current versions, which, 
after all, have the same potential problem. I don't see this message on 
history pages for our other projects, and we ought to keep this consistent.

If a copyright holder complains specifically about infringement in the 
page history, I believe we can deal with the issue at that point. Based 
on the discussions I've seen, I understand the developers can purge 
portions of text from individual revisions if necessary. In the 
meantime, I think this is an unnecessary and ultimately ineffective 
disclaimer.

--Michael Snow