Re: [Foundation-l] Office action
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 1:08 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: The Right Honourable Mr Godwin: In the world outside this mailing list, the fact that I'm responding to this extent to these criticisms would itself be taken as proof of transparency, not disproof. Well yes, but after the fact. If I'm reading the criticism correctly the point being made is that within the process there might be some room for *including* the community in these actions... Personally I'm in favour of a strong legal lead to protect the community. If there's a debate to be had, I'd rather see action taken and then the discussion had afterwards as to whether we have a strong community feeling for those things to then be replaced. To do it the other way, by community consensus *first*... well, the overwhelming majority are not lawyers and even fewer will be cognisant of the laws pertaining to copyright or other issues that hit Wikipedia. So I trust Mike Godwin to protect us all and *then* be challenged on his actions whilst, in the interim, we lose the content under discussion. User:Bodnotbod ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Office action
For me there is no reason to believe that Mr. Godwin is a good lawyer. If he receives a formal (blah-blah) correct take-down-notice he will take OFFICE ACTION. It was clearly un-lawful to take down the TU Munich logo which isn't protectable according German copyright law but WMF has done so. It is a shame that WMF hasn't a policy of TRANSPARENCY regarding office actions. The right of the community to get all information cannot be overruled by Mr. Godwin's personal opinions about secret things. If WMF or it's god-like counsel (who wasn't able to accept critics since I am reading this list) has taken office action - there is no way to appeal. Roma locuta causa finita ... Klaus Graf ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office action
On 3 June 2010 00:13, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com wrote: It was clearly un-lawful to take down the TU Munich logo which isn't protectable according German copyright law but WMF has done so. Of course it is lawful for the WMF to remove something from a WMF site. It may not be legally necessary, but that doesn't make it un-lawful. Also, German copyright law is irrelevant - the servers are in Florida (with a few in the Netherlands) and that is where almost all the WMF's assets are based. Finally, the WMF rightfully errs on the side of caution with legal matters - just because we could win the court case doesn't mean it is worth fighting it. Oh, one last point - next time you post a complaint to foundation-l, please include links to the relevant actions and discussions. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office action
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com wrote: For me there is no reason to believe that Mr. Godwin is a good lawyer. If he receives a formal (blah-blah) correct take-down-notice he will take OFFICE ACTION. It was clearly un-lawful to take down the TU Munich logo which isn't protectable according German copyright law but WMF has done so. It is a shame that WMF hasn't a policy of TRANSPARENCY regarding office actions. The right of the community to get all information cannot be overruled by Mr. Godwin's personal opinions about secret things. If WMF or it's god-like counsel (who wasn't able to accept critics since I am reading this list) has taken office action - there is no way to appeal. Roma locuta causa finita ... Klaus Graf Could you restate this in a way which was not personally insulting to Mike, and by implication to the Foundation as an organization? Mike has been at the forefront of liberalizing open access to information and the open content movement for at least 23 years that I've known him. Despite that, it's his job to see that the Foundation finds an acceptable balance point between freeing all information we can, and not being sued into oblivion by someone whose legitimate copyright we infringe. The Wikipedia project can't practically survive without a Foundation to take some legal responsibility and help keep the lights on / servers running. We are not Wikileaks - and even they have found some limits on what they can get away with, though those are fortunately loosening over time. I can believe Mike might under some circumstances make a mistake, but assuming he's acting unreasonably or without regard for open content is assuming bad faith in the worst way. It's not called for and not helpful. Asking what happened, or trying to promote discussion on something that happened, are fine and reasonable. Just outright assaulting the Foundation and Mike is not. Please don't do that here. Criticism can be done constructively and in good faith. Thank you. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office action
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com wrote: For me there is no reason to believe that Mr. Godwin is a good lawyer. If he receives a formal (blah-blah) correct take-down-notice he will take OFFICE ACTION. It was clearly un-lawful to take down the TU Munich logo which isn't protectable according German copyright law but WMF has done so. It is a shame that WMF hasn't a policy of TRANSPARENCY regarding office actions. The right of the community to get all information cannot be overruled by Mr. Godwin's personal opinions about secret things. If WMF or it's god-like counsel (who wasn't able to accept critics since I am reading this list) has taken office action - there is no way to appeal. Roma locuta causa finita ... Klaus Graf Obviously some (including you) disagree but I don't feel like Mike has in any way rejected his critics. The is also obviously a misunderstanding about your ability to appeal the action. As Mike said in the email thread regarding the frWS deletions they wouldn't redelete it if someone uploaded it with an affidavit that they had the right to do so. Perhaps we should be trying to find easier ways to make everyone understand the options that the uploaders/community have when the WMF gets a takedown notice but of course you need to avoid fully giving legal advice. It does not seem unreasonable (and to be honest seems required within the law) to delete the content when you get a proper notice. If someone then objects and reuploads the the original requester has to take legal action if they want it down, then it's up to the courts and if the courts say it has to come down it does... basically period. James James Alexander james.alexan...@rochester.edu jameso...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office action
Hoi, The question is not so much what you believe but very much the reputation Mr Godwin has. In my appreciation he has an excellent reputation based on the many relevant jobs that he has had in the past. There are not many people who are associated with a law that is named after them. When you consider the relevance of the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects, the number of jurisdictions that are associated with Wikipedias because of a language that is associated with that country it is really amazing that there are so few lawyers working for the Wikimedia Foundation. Mr Godwin is the lawyer for the Wikimedia Foundation, he is not your lawyer, he is not the lawyer of the project where you feel at home. His job is to ensure the legal prudence of the WMF and keep its projects safe. When you feel that certain decisions of the WMF are wrong, your best line of action is to go to a lawyer that practices law in the relevant jurisdiction explain your case and have him talk to Mr Godwin. Indeed at your cost, he is after all your lawyer. Finally as it seems to be necessary to understand Latin in order to read your rant, I want to use that language with Cave canum. What I know of that language is thanks to those fine Gauls immortalised by Underzo and Goscinny. Brassica is translated in apekool in my language but I am not sure that translates well. Thanks, GerardM On 3 June 2010 01:13, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com wrote: For me there is no reason to believe that Mr. Godwin is a good lawyer. If he receives a formal (blah-blah) correct take-down-notice he will take OFFICE ACTION. It was clearly un-lawful to take down the TU Munich logo which isn't protectable according German copyright law but WMF has done so. It is a shame that WMF hasn't a policy of TRANSPARENCY regarding office actions. The right of the community to get all information cannot be overruled by Mr. Godwin's personal opinions about secret things. If WMF or it's god-like counsel (who wasn't able to accept critics since I am reading this list) has taken office action - there is no way to appeal. Roma locuta causa finita ... Klaus Graf ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Office action
Klaus Graf writes: For me there is no reason to believe that Mr. Godwin is a good lawyer. I certainly don't require that you believe I'm a good lawyer. I'd be a very poor lawyer indeed, however, if I invited publishers to embroil us in expensive copyright lawsuits that we might not win when both U.S. and international law provide a mechanism for sidestepping such lawsuits. I realize that some people think it would be very thrilling if the Wikimedia Foundation were to take on such lawsuits to vindicate the views of contributing editors who themselves are not willing to engage directly in litigation with overreaching publishers. And it would be thrilling, I suppose, but not in a very responsible way. If he receives a formal (blah-blah) correct take-down-notice he will take OFFICE ACTION. Yes, it is correct that I will comply with a DMCA (or equivalent) takedown notice. In this respect, I'm like just about every lawyer everywhere who represents a service provider. Perhaps they are all bad lawyers, but at least I'm in good company if they are. It was clearly un-lawful to take down the TU Munich logo which isn't protectable according German copyright law but WMF has done so. I'm unaware of any takedown notice regarding the TU Munich logo. Perhaps you are referring to some action taken by my predecessor. It is a shame that WMF hasn't a policy of TRANSPARENCY regarding office actions. The right of the community to get all information cannot be overruled by Mr. Godwin's personal opinions about secret things. In the world outside this mailing list, the fact that I'm responding to this extent to these criticisms would itself be taken as proof of transparency, not disproof. If WMF or it's god-like counsel (who wasn't able to accept critics since I am reading this list) has taken office action - there is no way to appeal. I invite informed criticism. In fact, I love it -- it's exceedingly helpful to receive thoughtful, informed criticism. I'm sure you share my belief in this, Klaus, and I look to you as a model of how to respond to thoughtful criticism. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office action
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:08 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: What harm do you foresee in replacing deleted pages with a declaration like YouTube uses, This Video has been deleted based on a copyright claim by The Disney Corporation ? And then an extension of If you believe this is public domain material then restore the page and include this disclaimer blah blah blah We aimed to do something like this. Can you say what you dislike about the current notices, which include the contact information for Gallimard? --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office action
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:08 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: What harm do you foresee in replacing deleted pages with a declaration like YouTube uses, This Video has been deleted based on a copyright claim by The Disney Corporation ? And then an extension of If you believe this is public domain material then restore the page and include this disclaimer blah blah blah We aimed to do something like this. Can you say what you dislike about the current notices, which include the contact information for Gallimard? --Mike I had the same thought as Will, until I read the actual page Cary created (which Yann linked to in his original message): http://fr.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Demande_des_éditions_Gallimard_du_15_février_2010diff=1547029oldid=1547025 It says exactly why the pages were deleted, and lists them, and it was created around the same time the deletions occurred. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office action
I hope you don't think that an individual contacting a company is going to do anything to change their minds about what is perceived about their frivolous claim. You didn't address my extension of that notice which would read something like If you believe this material IS in the public domain than follow these steps Do we really want every contributor to be an expert in the copyright laws of any particular nation that might have a company exerting some obscure claim? So I would recommend we add the very wording that you Mike gave us on this list, to that page. I think that would address the follow-up (or initial however you see it) objection. The point not being completely that the take-down was in error, but only that part of it was in error. And now we're going to provide the method by which that part can be restored. That was my point. That is what's missing from the take-down notice. -Original Message- From: Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com To: wjhon...@aol.com Cc: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Jun 2, 2010 5:24 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Office action On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:08 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: What harm do you foresee in replacing deleted pages with a declaration like YouTube uses, This Video has been deleted based on a copyright claim by The Disney Corporation ? And then an extension of If you believe this is public domain material then restore the page and include this disclaimer blah blah blah We aimed to do something like this. Can you say what you dislike about the current notices, which include the contact information for Gallimard? --Mike = ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office action
-Original Message- From: Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Jun 2, 2010 4:54 pm Subject: [Foundation-l] Office action It is a shame that WMF hasn't a policy of TRANSPARENCY regarding office actions. The right of the community to get all information cannot be overruled by Mr. Godwin's personal opinions about secret things. In the world outside this mailing list, the fact that I'm responding to this extent to these criticisms would itself be taken as proof of transparency, not disproof. Well yes, but after the fact. If I'm reading the criticism correctly the point being made is that within the process there might be some room for *including* the community in these actions, or at the very least replacing the deleted pages with an explanation of what occurred and how to *fix* it. We've seen that here, you helpfully described what a person should do if they object to the deletion. But is that information on the deleted pages themselves? What harm do you foresee in replacing deleted pages with a declaration like YouTube uses, This Video has been deleted based on a copyright claim by The Disney Corporation ? And then an extension of If you believe this is public domain material then restore the page and include this disclaimer blah blah blah ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office action
Gerard Meijssen wrote: Finally as it seems to be necessary to understand Latin in order to read your rant, I want to use that language with Cave canum. What I know of that language is thanks to those fine Gauls immortalised by Underzo and Goscinny. Brassica is translated in apekool in my language but I am not sure that translates well. On 3 June 2010 01:13, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com wrote: If WMF or it's god-like counsel (who wasn't able to accept critics since I am reading this list) has taken office action - there is no way to appeal. Roma locuta causa finita ... My phrase in this connection would be in [[Dog latin]], and addressed to Mike Godwin, rather than the original poster. Illegitimum non carborundum est. 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] Office action
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:56 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Do we really want every contributor to be an expert in the copyright laws of any particular nation that might have a company exerting some obscure claim? We want every contributor who is going to be submitting non-original content (whether texts for Wikisource or images for Commons etc) to know about US copyright law, and where applicable, copyright law for what you might call the 'primary' country for the language of their local project. So your question rephrased for these circumstances is do we want French contributors to be expert in French copyright law when contesting copyright claims by French companies, and the answer is yes. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office action
On 3 June 2010 00:13, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com wrote: For me there is no reason to believe that Mr. Godwin is a good lawyer. If he receives a formal (blah-blah) correct take-down-notice he will take OFFICE ACTION. It was clearly un-lawful to take down the TU Munich logo which isn't protectable according German copyright law but WMF has done so. It is a shame that WMF hasn't a policy of TRANSPARENCY regarding office actions. The right of the community to get all information cannot be overruled by Mr. Godwin's personal opinions about secret things. If WMF or it's god-like counsel (who wasn't able to accept critics since I am reading this list) has taken office action - there is no way to appeal. Roma locuta causa finita ... Klaus Graf You mean the Technical University Munich logo? The problem is that the image servers are in the US and under US law I can see a case being made for the logo being subject to copyright. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office action
On 3 June 2010 00:54, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, it is correct that I will comply with a DMCA (or equivalent) takedown notice. In this respect, I'm like just about every lawyer everywhere who represents a service provider. Perhaps they are all bad lawyers, but at least I'm in good company if they are. I will remind you that Wikipedia hosts information about a number of individuals and organization who have been known to file DMCA notices on materials that they either do not hold the rights on at all or which clearly fall within fair use in order to suppress information. So are you going to accept all DMCA notices regardless of how valid you feel the copyright claim is? -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
