I've actually been doing a lot of research on the history of copyright law
on-wiki - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ironholds/statute for
example - and I've been focusing on the Berne Convention, later on. The
rationale for encyclopaedias (something that is not just common law, but in
some
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I've actually been doing a lot of research on the history of copyright law
on-wiki - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ironholds/statute for
example - and I've been focusing on the Berne Convention, later on. The
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't claim to have made a special study of the issue, but have had it
pretty much forced down my throat by circumstances. While our
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I suppose we could add a disclaimer saying that the Terms of Use do not
affect the editor's moral rights, although this would be a bit redundant
since the CC-BY-SA license already states this.
It may be redundant in
On 12 December 2011 20:54, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I suppose we could add a disclaimer saying that the Terms of Use do not
affect the editor's moral rights, although this would be a bit redundant
since the CC-BY-SA license already states this.
Ryan Kaldari
The problem is
On 12 December 2011 20:22, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 December 2011 20:05, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
We switched to
the current license terms because we realised requiring re-users to
credit every single person that made a non-trivial edit to the page
On 12/13/11 9:02 AM, geni wrote:
Actually it is extremely unclear why we switched. There are in fact a
number of re-users that managed to deal with the attribution issue in
paper form.
It can often be done on paper (and easily on the web), but it's not very
convenient for audio, i.e. spoken
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
[...] Using a URL allows attribution without
creating a hardship for the reuser. This has the added benefit of
allowing us to enforce our terms firmly and consistantly, rather than
carving out exceptions for various
Not really, in the UK at least. However this is a poor example; it's
important to note that UK moral rights legislation isn't
*actually*representative. we fail to comply with the Berne Convention
on attribution,
insofar as we don't mandate it except when the author makes clear he wants
it. It's
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/13/11 12:14 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Using an URL does allow the semblance of attribution, but does not
fulfil the legal requirements of moral rights. I find it mildly
distasteful, that
other
Sorry about the confusion. I was talking most recently about the GFDL,
which does not mention moral rights. CC-BY-SA does mention moral rights
(to state that it does not affect them). Interestingly, the U.S. port of
the CC-BY-SA license does not include a disclaimer about moral rights,
but
Le 11 décembre 2011 19:02, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com a écrit :
Hi.
The Terms of use rewrite is starting to wind down. The current draft is
here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use.
From the point of view of Continental Europe, where creators enjoy
advanced copyright laws which
For some unexplained reasons, the whole contents of my message is not
showing at
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-December/070807.html
. Here is another copy again:
Le 12 décembre 2011 17:14, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com a écrit :
Le 11 décembre 2011 19:02, MZMcBride
On 12 December 2011 16:18, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
For some unexplained reasons, the whole contents of my message is not
showing at
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-December/070807.html
. Here is another copy again:
It came to the list, but the archiving
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the WMF should not have relied on a US lawyer alone. Perhaps a
team associating a US lawyer with a continental Europe lawyer would
have been better.
Your notion that we just had some American lawyer with no
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the WMF should not have relied on a US lawyer alone. Perhaps a
team associating a US lawyer with a continental Europe lawyer would
have been better.
Your notion that we just had some American lawyer with no
Would you care to explain anything you're talking about?
I don't see anything in the Licensing section that mentions anything
about U.S. copyright law. It says the content is licensed under the GFDL
and CC-BY-SA, and the Attribution section just reflects the standard
practices for those
I forgot humiliate. Sorry.
Ryan Kaldari
On 12/12/11 8:14 AM, Teofilo wrote:
Le 11 décembre 2011 19:02, MZMcBridez...@mzmcbride.com a écrit :
Hi.
The Terms of use rewrite is starting to wind down. The current draft is
here:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use.
From the point of
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 11 décembre 2011 19:02, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com a écrit :
Hi.
The Terms of use rewrite is starting to wind down. The current draft is
here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use.
From the point of
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Would you care to explain anything you're talking about?
I don't see anything in the Licensing section that mentions anything
about U.S. copyright law. It says the content is licensed under the GFDL
and CC-BY-SA, and
On 12/12/2011 3:02 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
I think what he means is that under most European copyright regimes,
an author has far-reaching personality rights, which include the right
to have the work accredited to them whenever it is republished. The
terms of use, in his feeling, hollow out
That's the whole point of free licenses—you're giving up some of your
rights to your work. This doesn't have anything to do with European vs.
American copyright law.
I checked the wording in the existing terms of service and it's exactly
the same.
Ryan Kaldari
On 12/12/11 12:02 PM, Andre
On 12 December 2011 20:05, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 12/12/2011 3:02 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
I think what he means is that under most European copyright regimes,
an author has far-reaching personality rights, which include the right
to have the work accredited to them
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 11 décembre 2011 19:02, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com a écrit :
Hi.
The Terms of use rewrite is starting to wind down. The current draft is
here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use.
From the point of
I suppose we could add a disclaimer saying that the Terms of Use do not
affect the editor's moral rights, although this would be a bit redundant
since the CC-BY-SA license already states this.
Ryan Kaldari
On 12/12/11 12:42 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:14 AM,
25 matches
Mail list logo
