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

[Anthere]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki%3AHistory_copyright


What do you think ?

Ant


Michael Snow a écrit:
> 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 (three for unpublished works).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