Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
Ray Saintonge wrote: > The only reason that "moral rights" is an issue is its inclusion in the > statutes of various countries. It mostly stems from an inflated > Napoleonic view of the Rights of Man that was meant to replace the > divine rights of kings. Common law countries have been loath to embark > in this direction. Moral rights are mentioned in the US law, but only > as a toothless tiger. > > Ec > > I would actually be interested to get the background for this interpretation of how moral rights came to happen as a legal idea. If there are such references. Particularly as the legal reasons in at least Finnish legal manuals for laymen who have to deal with moral rights seem to focus on the utility moral rights have in terms of protecting the artisans reputation as being good at his craft. I have great difficulty understanding how the "right to examine" could be traced to some grandiose "Rights of Man" basis, since the argument presented for this particular moral right is clearly grounded on protecting the artisan/artists ability to examine their earlier work, to remind them self and refresh their memory on methods they had employed on those works, and thus enable them to not lose skills and methods they had mastered in earlier days. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
Anthony wrote: > Actually, the difference is quite relevant in a courtroom, especially when > dealing with constitutional issues. That's why I find it nearly impossible > to believe that Mike doesn't understand this. How in the world can you > defend people's constitutional rights if you think they're made up out of > nowhere? Why defend free speech if it's just a couple words some guys made > up and wrote down on paper? The very nature of the legal system in the > United States of America is based upon natural rights. "We hold these > truths to be self-evident". Self-evident. Not created by congressmen. It was not created by congressmen because there were no congressmen before the US Constitution was written. The fact that they "held" their opinions to be self-evident does not make their opinions universal. Your self-serving comment is on a par with saying that God exists because the Bible says so. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
Ray Saintonge wrote: > David Goodman wrote: > >> My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely >> and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral >> rights of the contributors. We contributed to a free encyclopedia, in >> the sense that the material could be used freely--and widely. We all >> explicitly agreed there could be commercial use, and most of us did >> not particularly concern ourselves with how other commercial or >> noncommercial sites would use or license the material, as long as what >> we put on Wikipedia could be used by anyone. >> >> >> > Precisely! To a large extent, we are effectively releasing our work > into the public domain, except for the fact that in some countries this > is not allowed. Also, putting a work into the public domain means > abandoning our rights of action in the event that there is infringement > on that public ownership. There is no custodian of the public domain to > take action when the copyrights of the general public have been infringed. > > This is an important point. It is precisely why it is not a good idea to remove attribution. Because just as releasing into public domain is not allowed in many jurisdictions, equally removing attribution willy-nilly is not allowed in many jurisdictions. If we were removing attribution like that, the problems would be nearly of the same order as from releasing it all to PD. Moving modified content from one jurisdiction to another would become a nightmare. Specifically in the case of CC-BY-SA my understanding is that any provisions it has for not honouring the moral rights laws of those jurisdictions where they are active, would only be useful, if one were working on a project that never wanted it to be realistically usefully re-used in such jurisdictions; which, again in my understanding, Wikimedia is not. ...[snip].. > > I choose to edit with a pseudonym, though my real name is certainly well > known to the community. My self-esteem is not so week that I need to be > publicly credited for every last edit that I make, the satisfaction of a > job well-done is its own reward. We do not own the articles, and we > edit each others' work mercilessly. Having a long list of names in > 2-point type just so that the individual editor can see his name in > print is wasteful and contrary to the spirit of our collective effort. > This is not what credit and attribution is about. Expecting anything > more from the downstream user than to say that he took things from > Wikipedia is unrealistic. > > Ec > > Heh. I call your pseudonymous editing, and raise you: "I like to edit anonymously occasionally." See my paragraphs above. We do want to have our content to be useful within the parameters of as many jurisdictions as the CC-BY-SA license allows, clearly, and the laws of many jurisdictions are clearly not satisfied with crediting Wikipedia. Or at the very least, the arguments why they would be thus satisfied, have not been spelled out on this mailing list. There *has* been an _assertion_ that legal people have been consulted, and based on this some people *think* such could be defended; but this has been disputed by multiple parties. For that matter. Wikipedia certainly gets no warm fuzzies from receiving credit, so why should it be credited at all, and not just its contributors - purely from the "reason" of "giving credit where is credit is due" point of view. The only reason you would have for crediting wikipedia would be because you accepted that fundamentally its contributors deserved some credit for the work, if the mention was done merely for reasons of giving credit; and not other reasons such as allowing verification or the like. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
George Herbert wrote: > Used relative to copyright law, the term unambiguously means what Mike is > saying, the rights that Europe (and others) have assigned to actual authors > distinct from copyright owners etc. > > The specific term as used in copyright law (as Mike says, a "term of the > art" in that field) has no legal utility in the United States, as those > rights in question are not acknowledged by US copyright law or precedent. > It is acknowledged in section 106A, but that seems to have been added more as a form of lip-service to international treaties. At the same time US law seems to be at pains to make sure that it has no meaningful legal effect. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
David Goodman wrote: > I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism. > It is a bit ego-centric to only care about how one self only views ones work as mattering. It is wise and pragmatic to acknowledge that not every individual thinks as one thinks themselves. That is pluralism. I don't myself care too much about being attributed (which is one of the reasons for a long time I just did IP-based edits), but I certainly will defend to the utmost anyones right to feel pride from name-recognition. Given that not that many books in the world are published anonymously, clearly this approach to ones name is far from exceptional. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism. On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > On Saturday 31 January 2009 11:23:33 Ray Saintonge wrote: >> David Goodman wrote: >> > My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely >> > and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral >> > rights of the contributors. We contributed to a free encyclopedia, in >> > the sense that the material could be used freely--and widely. We all >> > explicitly agreed there could be commercial use, and most of us did >> > not particularly concern ourselves with how other commercial or >> > noncommercial sites would use or license the material, as long as what >> > we put on Wikipedia could be used by anyone. >> >> Precisely! To a large extent, we are effectively releasing our work >> into the public domain, except for the fact that in some countries this > > No, we are not, and it is ridiculous to even think that. First of all, I > would most certainly not work on Wikipedia or any similar project if that > would mean that my work is put in the public domain. > >> is not allowed. Also, putting a work into the public domain means >> abandoning our rights of action in the event that there is infringement > > No, it does not. Even if we have had put our work in public domain, in most > jurisdictions we would still retain our moral rights. No one would be allowed > to claim to be the author, for example. > >> on that public ownership. There is no custodian of the public domain to >> take action when the copyrights of the general public have been infringed. > > Yes, there is. For example, Copyright law of Serbia explicitly specifies > (Article 56) that author's heirs, associations of authors and scientific and > art institutions are entitled to protect moral rights of the authors. > >> edit each others' work mercilessly. Having a long list of names in >> 2-point type just so that the individual editor can see his name in >> print is wasteful and contrary to the spirit of our collective effort. > > It is not having editors' names anywhere that is wasteful and contrary to the > spirit of our collective effort. People are doing what they are because they > take pride of what they do. If people are not properly credited, fewer people > will work on the projects. If people are not properly credited, they will > care less about their reputation and write worse. There is absolutely nothing > to gain, and a number of things to lose from not crediting the authors. > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
On Saturday 31 January 2009 11:23:33 Ray Saintonge wrote: > David Goodman wrote: > > My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely > > and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral > > rights of the contributors. We contributed to a free encyclopedia, in > > the sense that the material could be used freely--and widely. We all > > explicitly agreed there could be commercial use, and most of us did > > not particularly concern ourselves with how other commercial or > > noncommercial sites would use or license the material, as long as what > > we put on Wikipedia could be used by anyone. > > Precisely! To a large extent, we are effectively releasing our work > into the public domain, except for the fact that in some countries this No, we are not, and it is ridiculous to even think that. First of all, I would most certainly not work on Wikipedia or any similar project if that would mean that my work is put in the public domain. > is not allowed. Also, putting a work into the public domain means > abandoning our rights of action in the event that there is infringement No, it does not. Even if we have had put our work in public domain, in most jurisdictions we would still retain our moral rights. No one would be allowed to claim to be the author, for example. > on that public ownership. There is no custodian of the public domain to > take action when the copyrights of the general public have been infringed. Yes, there is. For example, Copyright law of Serbia explicitly specifies (Article 56) that author's heirs, associations of authors and scientific and art institutions are entitled to protect moral rights of the authors. > edit each others' work mercilessly. Having a long list of names in > 2-point type just so that the individual editor can see his name in > print is wasteful and contrary to the spirit of our collective effort. It is not having editors' names anywhere that is wasteful and contrary to the spirit of our collective effort. People are doing what they are because they take pride of what they do. If people are not properly credited, fewer people will work on the projects. If people are not properly credited, they will care less about their reputation and write worse. There is absolutely nothing to gain, and a number of things to lose from not crediting the authors. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
2009/1/30 Andrew Gray : > 2009/1/28 Thomas Dalton : > >> The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things >> either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki >> before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a >> book first and added to Wikipedia since the new license was announced, >> it isn't eligible (without explicit permission from the copyright >> owner - which shouldn't be difficult to get). > > Ha, that clause. I'd forgotten about it. > > Even so, I think we can reasonably not worry ourselves overly. The > author has consented to publish it under the GFDL as normal when he > uploaded it to enwp, right? You have to split hairs very fine to > distinguish between: > > a) Author uploads own work, chooses to license the "new copy" of it > under license X. > > b) Author uploads own work *as licensed copy* of material previously > published elsewhere, and must be treated as such. > > Which is to say, if you look hard you have a point, but there's a > perfectly legitimate interpretation going the other way, which > complies with the letter just as well and the spirit perhaps better! While the spirit is clearly would allow us to relicense it (assuming the person that actually uploaded it is the sole copyright owner - the publishing company/editor might own some of the rights, I don't know how such things work), my reading of the letter of the license would say it's very clearly not allowed. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Erik Moeller wrote: > First, we think it's wonderful that O'Reilly has done this; TMM is a > fantastic book and a great introduction for newbies. (We have been > giving copies away as gifts for a while.) I believe Frank is planning > to blog about this in more detail soon. Please do show them some love > for doing this; it's obviously highly unusual and very nice. :-) But, so far, not that unusual for books about Wikipedia! ;) > O'Reilly took the initiative to release the book under a free license, > and we've encouraged it - but we don't have any formal agreement with > them that it ought to be posted on Wikipedia. That's a community > decision, and neither we nor O'Reilly would want it to be any other > way. My personal take is that it should live where it's most likely to > be used and maintained, and regardless of its dead tree origins, the > help section of en.wp seems to be a pretty logical place. But that's > just my take - in future, we are also considering to set up a > dedicated portal with various learning resources for wiki newbies, > where static copies could live. > > Erik I'm clearly not unbiased in the matter, but it seems to me that it would make sense to have it at Wikibooks, since it's a complete work that can stand alone. It's also, of course, not the only book about Wikipedia, and I think we were planning to put "How Wikipedia Works" on Wikibooks eventually.* Clearly these books should be close to Wikipedia and well-linked from there, but I'm not sure they should actually be *on* Wikipedia. It makes sense to me to make an area with all sorts of multilingual learning resources in all sorts of formats as well, like Erik suggests. Currently on the English Wikipedia there is the out of the way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Instructional_material, but this needs to be greatly improved. I'd be glad to work on a project to do so. -- phoebe * this hasn't happened mostly because I've been busy this winter. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Are model releases required for 'Free' content? (was: Sexual Content on Wikimedia)
2009/1/31 Peter Jacobi : > David Gerard wrote: >> I didn't add "(or are supposed to be)". Now I'm wondering if I was >> thinking of the personality rights tag. > Can you please give an example link to the tag you are talking about? This is the personality rights tag: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Personality_rights This is the category of restrictions templates: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Restriction_tags Possibly I was thinking of the note about model rights in the reuse page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:REUSE So if there isn't a tag warning in general about model rights (assuming reusers aren't reading all of Commons, they're just looking at an image page, seeing the licence and going "ooh I can use that" as Virgin did with the CC-by-sa pic they reused) - is a tag warning that, duh, you have to take care with pictures of people worthwhile? (cc to commons-l) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Are model releases required for 'Free' content? (was: Sexual Content on Wikimedia)
David Gerard wrote: > I didn't add "(or are supposed to be)". Now I'm wondering if I was > thinking of the personality rights tag. Can you please give an example link to the tag you are talking about? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Are model releases required for 'Free' content? (was: Sexual Content on Wikimedia)
2009/1/31 Geoffrey Plourde : > Sam; > > I think that this is more of a Commons discussion. While I disagree with much > of what you say, I agree that this class of image, by its very nature, > requires more scrutiny. Serious thought should be given to a Nude Model > Policy of requiring uploaders to answer about five questions under penalty of > perjury. This would shift liability off of us in the event that someone uses > Commons as a battleground and we get sued. > We do not have the authority to ask people questions under penalty of perjury. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
David Goodman wrote: > My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely > and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral > rights of the contributors. We contributed to a free encyclopedia, in > the sense that the material could be used freely--and widely. We all > explicitly agreed there could be commercial use, and most of us did > not particularly concern ourselves with how other commercial or > noncommercial sites would use or license the material, as long as what > we put on Wikipedia could be used by anyone. > > Precisely! To a large extent, we are effectively releasing our work into the public domain, except for the fact that in some countries this is not allowed. Also, putting a work into the public domain means abandoning our rights of action in the event that there is infringement on that public ownership. There is no custodian of the public domain to take action when the copyrights of the general public have been infringed. I have no complaints about commercial use, but I am concerned when a commercial user massively takes freely licensed or public domain material and parks them under the umbrella of his copyrights so that the users of "his" material unwittingly respect a copyright that has no basis in fact. If the only ones with rights of action against the fraudster are the separate owners of the fragments, we will have loosed the tactic of divide and conquer upon our own selves. I would really like to see a situation where we nominating someone as an non-exclusive agent with the right to prosecute serious copyright violations on a class action basis. I choose to edit with a pseudonym, though my real name is certainly well known to the community. My self-esteem is not so week that I need to be publicly credited for every last edit that I make, the satisfaction of a job well-done is its own reward. We do not own the articles, and we edit each others' work mercilessly. Having a long list of names in 2-point type just so that the individual editor can see his name in print is wasteful and contrary to the spirit of our collective effort. This is not what credit and attribution is about. Expecting anything more from the downstream user than to say that he took things from Wikipedia is unrealistic. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
