[Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

[wjhonson at aol.com]

 The foundation does not "own and operate" the site in the way that Fox news owns and operates their site.
The foundation merely ensures that the site operates, functions, runs.
It does not edit the contents of the site.  That is the fundamental flaw in this argument.
I really doubt that we are "promoting" the Foundation.  I think we are "promoting" (if anything) the contents of the site, which contents are created, edited, loaded by the community.  It is the uploader who is responsible for any legal issue regarding what they have uploaded.  Not the foundation.

That is how the Wikimedia sites differ from a typical site.
In the same way, Facebook is not legally responsible for some member uploaded nude pictures of their ex-boyfriend to their page.
The user doing the uploading is responsible.




<<That in essence is the problem. A whole bunch of people promote 
something called Wikimedia Foundation which says it owns and operates a 
number of sites.

http://www.wikimedia.org/

and when anything controversial happens, whenever any one comes 
knocking, everyone runs for a bolt hole, or looks shifty and muttering 
"we got nuffin to do with it".

Its a tactic that allows Faux News to cast the Foundation as 
irresponsible jerks.>>


 

 


 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Fri, May 21, 2010 1:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!


David Goodman wrote:
> all of these problems are with other people than us.  Our copyright
> license permits commercial use, and does not apply to any potential
> problems other than copyright.  This has nothing to do with our
> licensing.  The reason nobody has answered this before is that it is
> irrelevant
> 
> The responsibility for following the law in uploads is with the
> uploaders.  It would however be good to alert them to the potential
> problem.
> 

That in essence is the problem. A whole bunch of people promote 
something called Wikimedia Foundation which says it owns and operates a 
number of sites.

http://www.wikimedia.org/

and when anything controversial happens, whenever any one comes 
knocking, everyone runs for a bolt hole, or looks shifty and muttering 
"we got nuffin to do with it".

Its a tactic that allows Faux News to cast the Foundation as 
irresponsible jerks.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l