wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Wouldn't it? Unless you're going to support what appears to be an
unsupportable platform that child porn (or whatever you want to call it) is
somehow different from any other type of content such as snuff films or
instructions on how to build a fertilizer bomb or
Stillwater Rising wrote:
Actually, it's not only the uploaders that have 18 USC 2257(A) record
keeping requirements, *anybody* who inserts on a computer site or service a
digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a
computer site or service that contains a visual
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Mike Godwin wrote:
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
Across the world the Nobody is home argument is quickly running out of
steam. Google execs sentenced to 6 months in Italy, LimeWire guilty for
its user's piracy, and blog owner found liable
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The foundation does not own and operate the site in the way that Fox news
owns and operates their site.
The foundation merely ensures that the site operates, functions, runs.
It does not edit the contents of the site. That is the fundamental flaw in
this argument.
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Your over-broad reading of this law would effectively gut that other
law which states that a host company is not responsible for what
people are hosting.
Wouldn't it? Unless you're going to support what appears to be an
unsupportable platform that child porn (or
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
Across the world the Nobody is home argument is quickly running out of
steam. Google execs sentenced to 6 months in Italy, LimeWire guilty for
its user's piracy, and blog owner found liable for user submitted libel.
It helps to actually read the stories and
Mike Godwin wrote:
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
Across the world the Nobody is home argument is quickly running out of
steam. Google execs sentenced to 6 months in Italy, LimeWire guilty for
its user's piracy, and blog owner found liable for user submitted libel.
It helps to
In a message dated 5/22/2010 11:41:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
The foundation or the site admins do moderate. The foundation or they
DO
have the power, to delete submissions that are considered non
encyclopedic, trolling, libelous and etc. There is
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 5/22/2010 11:41:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
The foundation or the site admins do moderate. The foundation or they
DO
have the power, to delete submissions that are considered non
encyclopedic, trolling,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Mike Godwin wrote:
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
Across the world the Nobody is home argument is quickly running out of
steam. Google execs sentenced to 6 months in Italy, LimeWire guilty for
its user's piracy, and blog owner found liable
David Goodman wrote:
all of these problems are with other people than us. Our copyright
license permits commercial use, and does not apply to any potential
problems other than copyright. This has nothing to do with our
licensing. The reason nobody has answered this before is that it is
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:54 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The foundation does not own and operate the site in the way that Fox
news owns and operates their site.
The foundation merely ensures that the site operates, functions, runs.
It does not edit the contents of the site. That is the
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Fri, May 21, 2010 4:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help,
please!
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:54 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The foundation does not own and operate the site in the way that Fox
news owns
Stillwater Rising writes:
Hosting these images without 18 USC 2257(A) records, in my opinion, is a *
no-win* situation for everyone involved.
This raises the obvious question of how you interpret 18 USC 2257A(g),
which refers back to 18 USC 2257(h) (including in particular 18 USC
I was just about to post that same section.
From 2257(h)(2)(B)) exception to record keeping:
(v) the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or
translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication, without
selection or alteration of the content of the communication,
, May 19, 2010 10:03 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help,
please!
The list of advantages for helping uploaders (producers) to comply with USC
2257 record-keeping guidelines are numerous, and was the core part of my
April 2010 sexual content proposal
: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content --
help, please!
The list of advantages for helping uploaders (producers) to comply
with USC
2257 record-keeping guidelines are numerous, and was the core part
of my
April 2010 sexual content proposal. To clarify, I did
wjhon...@aol.com hett schreven:
You are missing the key point. The pivot upon which the issue turns
is not whether or not a site is non-commercial or educational. The
pivot is whether the site itself creates the content, or whether it
merely hosts the content.
Wikimedia Commons is
There's been many legal opinions presented in this forum, but the one that
really matters is that of the Office of the Attorney General. I would
suggest that Mike Godwin contact Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer
(ask...@usdoj.gov ask...@usdoj.gov?subject=usdoj%20comments or (202)
Hoi,
I have largely turned off on this subject. It has hardly a relation to what
I consider as relevant. Asking the Assistant Attorney General to me will
bring us just another opinion with recommendations. In practical terms less
relevant then Commons being blocked by the Iranians because we are
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:33, Still Waterising
stillwateris...@gmail.com wrote:
I can accept that Commons may not fit under the definition of
secondary producer. However, when Wikipedians choose a sexually
explicit image from Commons, the crop it and add a caption, this may
fall under the
] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help,
please!
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Thursday, 20 May, 2010, 21:11
There's been many legal opinions
presented in this forum, but the one that
really matters is that of the Office of the Attorney
an active role in the selection of what material to present. And the Board has
released statements on policy in this regard.
Andreas
--- On Thu, 20/5/10, Mark Wagner carni...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Mark Wagner carni...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Stillwater Rising
stillwateris...@gmail.com wrote:
There's been many legal opinions presented in this forum, but the one that
really matters is that of the Office of the Attorney General. I would
suggest that Mike Godwin contact Assistant Attorney General Lanny
What I'm advocating for now is voluntary compliance, for the following
reasons (and nobody has tried to address #3 yet):
It's a proven system of record keeping that verifies information like
names of subjects, stage names, date of birth, name of photographer,
consent (implied by completing
all of these problems are with other people than us. Our copyright
license permits commercial use, and does not apply to any potential
problems other than copyright. This has nothing to do with our
licensing. The reason nobody has answered this before is that it is
irrelevant
The
I contacted Drew Sabol; professor, attorney, and owner of a 2257
record-keeping service called 2257services.nethttp://www.2257services.net/
.
His opinion is the Wikipedia is something like a social networking site that
accepts user submission. The Department of Justice (DOJ) put out an update
This seems self-contradictory. If we are exempt we're exempt. If we're
exempt we have no need to keep records. We would of course do well to
advise our users about their own responsibilities.
If we do decide to require some sort of certification--and I do not
oppose our doing so-- it raises the
The list of advantages for helping uploaders (producers) to comply with USC
2257 record-keeping guidelines are numerous, and was the core part of my
April 2010 sexual content proposal. To clarify, I did not then and still do
not believe OTRS should be directly handing Personally Identifying
] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help,
please!
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Friday, 14 May, 2010, 18:43
The right to privacy is basedÂ
explicitly on respecting cultural
taboos of individuals. Ordinary identifiable people should
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
The obligation to protect people against an invasion of their privacy
is not limited to, or even mostly applicable to sexual images.
Although sexual images are one of
--- On Fri, 14/5/10, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help,
please!
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Friday, 14 May, 2010
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Someone uploading a nude picture of their ex-girlfriend can be far more
injurious to the woman concerned than the same person uploading an image of
her making tea.
Requiring an OTRS release from the model for any nude
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote:
Except the case that you make a photo of yourself. In this case the
OTRS ticket is not important like is not important in the point of
view of copyright.
In any case what means injurious? It can change in relation of
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote:
Except the case that you make a photo of yourself. In this case the
OTRS ticket is not important like is not important in the point of
view of copyright.
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Someone uploading a nude picture of their ex-girlfriend can be far more
injurious to the woman concerned than the same person uploading an image of
her making tea.
It can be. Then again, an image of her making tea
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Someone uploading a nude picture of their ex-girlfriend can be far more
injurious to the woman concerned than the same person uploading an image of
her
Ilario Valdelli wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Someone uploading a nude picture of their ex-girlfriend can be far more
injurious to the woman concerned than the same person uploading an image of
her making tea.
Requiring an OTRS release from
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 5/14/2010 7:50:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nawr...@gmail.com writes:
Surely there is a way to meet educational goals without risking the
privacy or abuse of content subjects?
How is a person uploading a picture of themselves to
David Goodman wrote:
But all of this is irrelevant to the original censorship issue,
because we are not protecting our audience, who can personally or by
proxy protect themselves have the responsibility for doing so; we
are protecting our subjects, who cannot.
First you have to define
On 14.05.2010 20:38, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Many nudist will tell you that what happens on the beach stays on the
beach. There is no expectation that a photo taken by a friend, or
stranger for that matter, will end up on a public website. Indeed there
have been recent case
Ilario Valdelli wrote:
On 14.05.2010 20:38, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Many nudist will tell you that what happens on the beach stays on the
beach. There is no expectation that a photo taken by a friend, or
stranger for that matter, will end up on a public website. Indeed there
have
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Jehochman has suggested that we need legal advice from the Foundation at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content
with respect to § 2257[1}, and I tend to agree with him. The relevant
discussion is
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure the presence or absence of a legal imperative is fully
relevant to the underlying question. The Commons project has a moral
responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that subjects of
sexually explicit media
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
The obligation to protect people against an invasion of their privacy
is not limited to, or even mostly applicable to sexual images.
Although sexual images are one of several most important cases, the
moral
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure the presence or absence of a legal imperative is fully
relevant to the underlying question. The Commons project has a moral
responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that subjects
46 matches
Mail list logo
