[Wikipedia-l] File upload Copyright notice

[Axel Boldt]

>> The current file upload utility requires the user to "donate" the
>> copyright to "Wikipedia". Wikipedia is no legal entity, so this
>> doesn't make sense. It is also not in line with the way we have
>> handled copyrights up to know for text submissions: the user retains
>> copyright, but licenses the work under GFDL. I suggest that this be
>> changed.

> What makes it true that "we have handled copyrights up to now for text
> submissions" in this way (i.e., with this interpretation)? 

There is nothing to interpret. I have never signed over copyrights of
any Wikipedia article I wrote to anybody, therefore I remain the sole
copyright owner. I *licensed* my materials under GFDL. Most free
software projects works that way. For instance, I own the copyright of
several parts of the Linux kernel.

Nothing on the website (except the new file upload notice) suggests
that contributors hand over copyrights. You are certainly free to in
the future demand that copyrights be signed over to a legal entity (as
the FSF for GNU software does), but then you need to 
 * create a legal entity which will hold the copyrights
 * get permission of copyright holders
The FSF demands a signed faxed paper to that effect from every
contributor (which I have sent, and therefore I am *not* anymore t
he copyright holder of the parts of emacs I wrote).

> While I can certainly freely admit that there are other
> interpretations, what I can't understand is why you would think
> another interpretation is so clearly the correct one.

I am unclear about what exactly you want to interpret. Is it the
submission notice we see on the edit screen?
  " Please notice that all contributions to Wikipedia are considered to
    be released under the GNU Free Documentation License. "
This says that whatever I contribute, I automatically license under
GFDL. Is there any way to understand this statement as saying "the
copyright to everything you contribute goes to Wikipedia, which then
licenses the materials under GFDL"? I very much doubt it, since the
sentence doesn't even contain the word "copyright".

The distinction is not just academic: if I give up copyright, then the
new copyright owner can in principle turn around and republish the
material under any license they wish, or sell the copyrights to
somebody else who may want to do that.

> By the way, Wikipedia might soon join Nupedia as part of a Nupedia
> Foundation; that then would be the obvious holders of Wikipedia
> article copyrights.

Yes, for future contributions, if that is desired.

Axel