Re: [Wikimedia-SF] [Publicpolicy] US/California AB 2880 vs PD-California?
On 06/14/2016 12:56 PM, Stephen LaPorte wrote: > I wanted to share a copy of a letter that we sent on AB > 2880: > https://policy.wikimedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/wikimedia-ab2880.pdf > > As well as a blog post on the > topic: > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/06/14/california-government-public-domain/ https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/california-legislature-drops-proposal-copyright-all-government-works EFF warned the bill’s authors about these problems in early May. Soon after, numerous other organizations joined in opposition from library groups to open government advocates to newspapers, Internet companies, and the California Chamber of Commerce. And more than 360 Californians wrote to their state legislators through EFF’s Action Center to sound the alarm. Those efforts have paid off. This week, the bill was amended to remove the new intellecutual property powers and the new exemptions to CPRA. What remains are provisions for better tracking of state patents, trademarks, and copyrights, and a new requirement that state agencies “consider” the intellectual property rights of all parties when they write contracts. These changes should help avoid situations like the ongoing trademark dispute over hotels and campgrounds in Yosemite National Park, without harming public access to government records and data. Based on the new amendments, EFF is dropping its opposition to A.B. 2880. Thank you to everyone who weighed in on this issue for sending a strong message that the abuse of intellectual property laws can harm many different sectors of society, and that preventing those abuses needs to be a top priority for our lawmakers. Thanks also to Assemblymember Mark Stone for listening and responding to Californians’ concerns with this bill. Well done! Mike ___ Wikimedia-SF mailing list Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
Re: [Wikimedia-SF] [Publicpolicy] US/California AB 2880 vs PD-California?
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > Thanks for sharing this, Mike. Sounds like something we should discuss at > the upcoming WikiSalon next Wednesday evening. I have some friends (outside > the wiki world) who know California lawmaking fairly well, I will ask around > a bit beforehand. I'm not in the area today but for those interested there's been a bit more discussion on the publicpolicy list, where Timothy Vollmer noted: CC wrote a post about it - https://blog.creativecommons.org/2016/05/19/california-bill/ Also, EFF has an action page up now where California residents can send a message to state reps. https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=10331 Mike ___ Wikimedia-SF mailing list Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
Re: [Wikimedia-SF] [Publicpolicy] US/California AB 2880 vs PD-California?
Thanks for sharing this, Mike. Sounds like something we should discuss at the upcoming WikiSalon next Wednesday evening. I have some friends (outside the wiki world) who know California lawmaking fairly well, I will ask around a bit beforehand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bay_Area_WikiSalon,_May_2016 -Pete On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote: > On 05/15/2016 08:07 PM, John P. Sadowski wrote: > > That is quite troubling, given that the committee approvals were > > near-unanimous. Is it possible that the bill could be interpreted > > to apply retroactively, meaning we'd have to remove those 1048 items? > > I don't see anything retroactive in the text, but I also don't see > anything that would strictly prohibit state agencies and local > governments from treating previous publications as subject to copyright. > > I see that User:Gazebo has posted at > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Proposed_law_in_California_to_extend_copyright_to_CA_state_and_local_government_works > to no discussion yet. > > > Any idea when the bill comes up with a vote? Wikimedia DC could > > possibly draft and send a letter giving Wikimedia-specific examples, > > or we could work with the Foundation legal team to do so. > > I don't know when it can be expected to come up for a vote. I should > know more about California lawmaking than I do, which is almost nothing. > I've copied wikimedia-sf; maybe some local California government maven > lurks there and could say. > > Mike > > > >> On May 15, 2016, at 9:47 PM, Mike Linksvayer > wrote: > >> > >> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/ab-2880 "California's Legislature > >> Wants to Copyright All Government Works" > >> > >> More background at > >> > https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160417/09213934197/california-assembly-looks-to-push-cities-to-copyright-trademark-everything-they-can.shtml > >> > >> According to http://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/ California is one > >> of the three most "open" regarding government works. Presumably it won't > >> be anymore if AB 2880 becomes law. > >> > >> California is one of only two U.S. states with a category under > >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_domain_by_government > >> -- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PD_California (1048 > items). > >> > >> I haven't investigated whether and how many of those items would be > >> subject to copyright had AB 2880 been California law at the times of > >> their publication. > >> > >> Skimming the bill's changes to present law at > >> > https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2880 > >> it seems the one or two maybe dangerous additions are these: > >> > >>> A public entity may own, license, and, if it deems it appropriate, > >>> formally register intellectual property it creates or otherwise > >>> acquires. > >> > >> The assembly's analysis views this as a clarification, but it could open > >> the door to widespread use (or copyright apologists would say, abuse) of > >> copyright by local government, as the EFF says, "to chill speech, stifle > >> open government, and harm the public domain." > >> > >>> (A) A state agency shall not enter into a contract under this > >>> article that waives the state’s intellectual property rights unless > >>> the state agency, prior to execution of the contract, obtains the > >>> consent of the department to the waiver. > >>> > >>> (B) An attempted waiver of the state’s intellectual property rights > >>> by a state agency that violates subparagraph (A) shall be deemed > >>> void as against public policy. > >> > >> It is not clear to me whether this addition might serve as a barrier to > >> agencies deciding to publish material under open licenses. In the > >> meantime, I assume it will foster such barriers in practice. > >> > >> https://twitter.com/mitchstoltz/status/731282363674562560 says > "[EFF]'ll > >> probably issue an action alert, but meantime, call your state assembly > >> member's office & ask them to oppose." > >> > >> If this is indeed a threat, I wonder if there's anything Wikimedians can > >> do to oppose it, in addition to those of us in California calling our > >> state assembly members? > >> > >> Mike > >> > >> ___ > >> Publicpolicy mailing list > >> publicpol...@lists.wikimedia.org > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > > > > ___ > > Publicpolicy mailing list > > publicpol...@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > > > > > ___ > Wikimedia-SF mailing list > Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf > ___ Wikimedia-SF mailing list Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
Re: [Wikimedia-SF] [Publicpolicy] US/California AB 2880 vs PD-California?
On 05/15/2016 08:07 PM, John P. Sadowski wrote: > That is quite troubling, given that the committee approvals were > near-unanimous. Is it possible that the bill could be interpreted > to apply retroactively, meaning we'd have to remove those 1048 items? I don't see anything retroactive in the text, but I also don't see anything that would strictly prohibit state agencies and local governments from treating previous publications as subject to copyright. I see that User:Gazebo has posted at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Proposed_law_in_California_to_extend_copyright_to_CA_state_and_local_government_works to no discussion yet. > Any idea when the bill comes up with a vote? Wikimedia DC could > possibly draft and send a letter giving Wikimedia-specific examples, > or we could work with the Foundation legal team to do so. I don't know when it can be expected to come up for a vote. I should know more about California lawmaking than I do, which is almost nothing. I've copied wikimedia-sf; maybe some local California government maven lurks there and could say. Mike >> On May 15, 2016, at 9:47 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote: >> >> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/ab-2880 "California's Legislature >> Wants to Copyright All Government Works" >> >> More background at >> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160417/09213934197/california-assembly-looks-to-push-cities-to-copyright-trademark-everything-they-can.shtml >> >> According to http://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/ California is one >> of the three most "open" regarding government works. Presumably it won't >> be anymore if AB 2880 becomes law. >> >> California is one of only two U.S. states with a category under >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_domain_by_government >> -- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PD_California (1048 items). >> >> I haven't investigated whether and how many of those items would be >> subject to copyright had AB 2880 been California law at the times of >> their publication. >> >> Skimming the bill's changes to present law at >> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2880 >> it seems the one or two maybe dangerous additions are these: >> >>> A public entity may own, license, and, if it deems it appropriate, >>> formally register intellectual property it creates or otherwise >>> acquires. >> >> The assembly's analysis views this as a clarification, but it could open >> the door to widespread use (or copyright apologists would say, abuse) of >> copyright by local government, as the EFF says, "to chill speech, stifle >> open government, and harm the public domain." >> >>> (A) A state agency shall not enter into a contract under this >>> article that waives the state’s intellectual property rights unless >>> the state agency, prior to execution of the contract, obtains the >>> consent of the department to the waiver. >>> >>> (B) An attempted waiver of the state’s intellectual property rights >>> by a state agency that violates subparagraph (A) shall be deemed >>> void as against public policy. >> >> It is not clear to me whether this addition might serve as a barrier to >> agencies deciding to publish material under open licenses. In the >> meantime, I assume it will foster such barriers in practice. >> >> https://twitter.com/mitchstoltz/status/731282363674562560 says "[EFF]'ll >> probably issue an action alert, but meantime, call your state assembly >> member's office & ask them to oppose." >> >> If this is indeed a threat, I wonder if there's anything Wikimedians can >> do to oppose it, in addition to those of us in California calling our >> state assembly members? >> >> Mike >> >> ___ >> Publicpolicy mailing list >> publicpol...@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > > ___ > Publicpolicy mailing list > publicpol...@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > ___ Wikimedia-SF mailing list Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
