Copyright on Wikisource

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Copyright on Wikisource

Yann Forget-2
Hi,

The question is asked whether we can host on Wikisource French authors whose
works are not yet in the public domain in France, but are in the USA.
Recently Villy and JB Soufron said we can't. JB Soufron supported the site
"les Classiques des sciences sociales" when they host the very same works.
Why not on Wikisource?

However we do host such works in Wikisource for the last two years. Why
changing policy now? On all subdomains, we apply US law regarding copyright.
Why applying different laws, different standards, on different subdomains?

More over, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of web sites hosted in US laws
which have these kind of works. AFAIK, there never was any judgement against
them. So I don't understand why Wikisource could not host these works.

Further more, I would suggest than Wikisource should be hosted in Canada, so
that the benefit of Canadian copyright law could be used.

Regards,

Yann

--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyright on Wikisource

Patrick, Brad
As American counsel, I would not dare contradict my French counterparts, but the answer is really simple - we will get sued by someone in France, and would subject the Foundation to the possibility of jurisdiction in France.  As our colleagues at Yahoo! Can attest, that is not a good thing.  It is not necessarily always in the interests of the mission of the organization to be aggressive at every turn.  This is one such example.

-Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Yann Forget
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 5:25 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright on Wikisource

Hi,

The question is asked whether we can host on Wikisource French authors whose works are not yet in the public domain in France, but are in the USA.
Recently Villy and JB Soufron said we can't. JB Soufron supported the site "les Classiques des sciences sociales" when they host the very same works.
Why not on Wikisource?

However we do host such works in Wikisource for the last two years. Why changing policy now? On all subdomains, we apply US law regarding copyright.
Why applying different laws, different standards, on different subdomains?

More over, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of web sites hosted in US laws which have these kind of works. AFAIK, there never was any judgement against them. So I don't understand why Wikisource could not host these works.

Further more, I would suggest than Wikisource should be hosted in Canada, so that the benefit of Canadian copyright law could be used.

Regards,

Yann

--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre _______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.

If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyright on Wikisource

Sam Korn
In reply to this post by Yann Forget-2
On 3/14/06, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The question is asked whether we can host on Wikisource French authors whose
> works are not yet in the public domain in France, but are in the USA.
> Recently Villy and JB Soufron said we can't. JB Soufron supported the site
> "les Classiques des sciences sociales" when they host the very same works.
> Why not on Wikisource?
>
> However we do host such works in Wikisource for the last two years. Why
> changing policy now? On all subdomains, we apply US law regarding copyright.
> Why applying different laws, different standards, on different subdomains?
>
> More over, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of web sites hosted in US laws
> which have these kind of works. AFAIK, there never was any judgement against
> them. So I don't understand why Wikisource could not host these works.
>
> Further more, I would suggest than Wikisource should be hosted in Canada, so
> that the benefit of Canadian copyright law could be used.

It's my impression that, yes, these *could* be hosted on WMF servers
legally.  However, this goes against our free spirit when the
documents would not be in the public domain in the areas where the
project is aimed.

Wikisource could host these works.  It's just best for them to be not
included in order that our free image is maintained.

--
Sam
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyright on Wikisource

Jean-Baptiste Soufron-2
In reply to this post by Patrick, Brad
Well that's also the point I tried to explain to Yann.

The canadian story is a different one. We were lucky enough to succeed,
but things are different in the present case.

I don't think we can adopt and foster an attitude that would so easily
lead us to be subject to prosecution in France... or elsewhere.

But the first misunderstanding was simply to believe that a work that is
Public Domain somewhere is PD everywhere... which is not the case.

Jean-Baptiste Soufron
cersa-cnrs paris 2
+33 (0) 617 962 457
http://soufron.typhon.net



Patrick, Brad wrote:

> As American counsel, I would not dare contradict my French counterparts, but the answer is really simple - we will get sued by someone in France, and would subject the Foundation to the possibility of jurisdiction in France.  As our colleagues at Yahoo! Can attest, that is not a good thing.  It is not necessarily always in the interests of the mission of the organization to be aggressive at every turn.  This is one such example.
>
> -Brad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Yann Forget
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 5:25 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright on Wikisource
>
> Hi,
>
> The question is asked whether we can host on Wikisource French authors whose works are not yet in the public domain in France, but are in the USA.
> Recently Villy and JB Soufron said we can't. JB Soufron supported the site "les Classiques des sciences sociales" when they host the very same works.
> Why not on Wikisource?
>
> However we do host such works in Wikisource for the last two years. Why changing policy now? On all subdomains, we apply US law regarding copyright.
> Why applying different laws, different standards, on different subdomains?
>
> More over, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of web sites hosted in US laws which have these kind of works. AFAIK, there never was any judgement against them. So I don't understand why Wikisource could not host these works.
>
> Further more, I would suggest than Wikisource should be hosted in Canada, so that the benefit of Canadian copyright law could be used.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann
>
> --
> http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l 
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.
>
> If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>  
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyright on Wikisource

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by Yann Forget-2
Yann Forget wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The question is asked whether we can host on Wikisource French authors whose
> works are not yet in the public domain in France, but are in the USA.
> Recently Villy and JB Soufron said we can't. JB Soufron supported the site
> "les Classiques des sciences sociales" when they host the very same works.
> Why not on Wikisource?
>
> However we do host such works in Wikisource for the last two years. Why
> changing policy now? On all subdomains, we apply US law regarding copyright.
> Why applying different laws, different standards, on different subdomains?
>
> More over, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of web sites hosted in US laws
> which have these kind of works. AFAIK, there never was any judgement against
> them. So I don't understand why Wikisource could not host these works.

Just on comment on this paragraph.
The fact other sites are not sued is not the proof it is legal. It may
simply be that such sites are not visible enough that the authors care.
However, it may be much more worthy to sue us.


> Further more, I would suggest than Wikisource should be hosted in Canada, so
> that the benefit of Canadian copyright law could be used.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyright on Wikisource

Jean-Christophe Chazalette
In reply to this post by Yann Forget-2
As I already told you, hosting material subject to copyright everywhere in
the world except in the USA is a mistake. The fact some texts by André Gide
are PD-US because written before 1923 won't impress Gide's heirs. Foundation
has certainly better things to do with its money than spending it in lost
cases.
villy ~~JC
PS: and please please stop telling that the fact the servers are in the USA
is good enough to strictly care only for the US law - with the Yahoo case,
you should know better.  Foundation could be sued right here in Paris and
should spend money on explaining how it comes that its site, reachable in
France, offers copyrighted material for free.

2006/3/14, Yann Forget <[hidden email]>:

>
> Hi,
>
> The question is asked whether we can host on Wikisource French authors
> whose
> works are not yet in the public domain in France, but are in the USA.
> Recently Villy and JB Soufron said we can't. JB Soufron supported the site
> "les Classiques des sciences sociales" when they host the very same works.
> Why not on Wikisource?
>
> However we do host such works in Wikisource for the last two years. Why
> changing policy now? On all subdomains, we apply US law regarding
> copyright.
> Why applying different laws, different standards, on different subdomains?
>
> More over, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of web sites hosted in US
> laws
> which have these kind of works. AFAIK, there never was any judgement
> against
> them. So I don't understand why Wikisource could not host these works.
>
> Further more, I would suggest than Wikisource should be hosted in Canada,
> so
> that the benefit of Canadian copyright law could be used.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann
>
> --
> http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyright on Wikisource

Delphine Ménard
In reply to this post by Yann Forget-2
On 3/14/06, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The question is asked whether we can host on Wikisource French authors whose
> works are not yet in the public domain in France, but are in the USA.
> Recently Villy and JB Soufron said we can't. JB Soufron supported the site
> "les Classiques des sciences sociales" when they host the very same works.
> Why not on Wikisource?
>
> However we do host such works in Wikisource for the last two years. Why
> changing policy now? On all subdomains, we apply US law regarding copyright.
> Why applying different laws, different standards, on different subdomains?
>
> More over, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of web sites hosted in US laws
> which have these kind of works. AFAIK, there never was any judgement against
> them. So I don't understand why Wikisource could not host these works.
>
> Further more, I would suggest than Wikisource should be hosted in Canada, so
> that the benefit of Canadian copyright law could be used.

Again (this was already discussed on the French mailing list regarding
another matter), thinking that because the sites are in Florida (or
anywhere else in the world) that you can avoid, as a French resident,
French law, is quite disturbing indeed. Living in France, you *have*
to respect French law. So as contributors, we should always respect
the law of the country we live in in the first place.

This is, imho, basic  common sense, and (again) I am appalled that
anyone could ever suggest the contrary.

Anyway, let's get "lawyery" here.

Circular 38b of the United States Copyright office
(http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38b.pdf) states:

"[This circular] amends section 104A of the Copyright Act to provide
for the automatic restoration of copyright in certain foreign works
that are in the public domain in the
United States but are protected by copyright or neighboring rights in
the source country. The effective date for restoration of copyright
for works from countries that are currently eligible is January 1,
1996.

and:

"Copyright in eligible works was restored January 1, 1996. To be
eligible, the work must meet all the following requirements:"

1. At the time the work was created, at least one author (or
rightholder in the case of a sound recording) must have been a
national or domiciliary of an eligible country. An
eligible country is a country, other than the United States, that is a
member of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and
Artistic Works (Berne Convention), is a member of the World Trade
Organization (WTO), or is subject to a presidential proclamation that
extends restored copyright protection to that country on the basis of
reciprocal treatment to the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries;
2. The work is not in the public domain in its source country through
expiration of the term of protection;
3. The work is in the public domain in the United States because the
work did not comply with formalities imposed at any time by the U.S.
law,4 the work lacked subject
matter protection in the United States in the case of sound recordings
fixed before February 15, 1972, or the work lacked national
eligibility in the United States; and
4. If published, the work must have first been published in an
eligible country and must not have been published in the United States
during the 30-day period following its first publication in that
eligible country.

And finally (can't get any clearer)

Term of Copyright
The copyright in any work in which copyright is restored will last for
the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have
enjoyed if the work had never entered the public domain in the United
States.
Generally, the U.S. copyright term for works published before January
1, 1978, lasts for 95 years from the year of first publication. [snip]
For works published on or after January1, 1978, the term of copyright
is the life of the author plus 70 years.

For example:
I)A French short story that was first published without copyright
notice in 1935 will be treated as if it had both been published with a
proper notice and properly renewed, meaning that its restored
copyright will expire on December 31, 2030 (95 years after the U.S.
copyright would have come into existence).

This said, I am not a lawyer and have probably gotten all of that
wrong...(I didn't read the fine print).

Cheers,

Delphine

--
~notafish
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyright on Wikisource

Yann Forget-2
In reply to this post by Yann Forget-2
Hi,

And oh, I forgot to say that if the new rule is to apply French laws to French
language projects, then first do it on the French Wikipedia, which goes
against French laws in many ways, the first of all by allowing "fair use",
then it would be proper to do it on Wikisource.

Regards,

Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyright on Wikisource

Chris Sherlock [TAL]
In reply to this post by Yann Forget-2
Jean-Christophe Chazalette wrote:

As I already told you, hosting material subject to copyright everywhere in
the world except in the USA is a mistake. The fact some texts by Andr? Gide
are PD-US because written before 1923 won't impress Gide's heirs. Foundation
has certainly better things to do with its money than spending it in lost
cases.
villy ~~JC
PS: and please please stop telling that the fact the servers are in the USA
is good enough to strictly care only for the US law - with the Yahoo case,
you should know better.  Foundation could be sued right here in Paris and
should spend money on explaining how it comes that its site, reachable in
France, offers copyrighted material for free.

I was under the impression that the U.S. had treaties with France and in
some circumstances will honour their laws. Is this the case or not?

Chris
TBSDY
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyright on Wikisource

Jimmy Wales
Furthermore, our *goals* -- neverminding the legal problesm that
Jean-Christophe Chazalette wrote about -- our *goals* include a very
high degree of reusability.  Hosting materials that are subject to
copyright everywhere in the world except in the USA is a mistake on the
simple grounds that such work would not be redistributable anywhere else.

This is why we should take a very very skeptical eye toward the use of
"fair use" even in English.


! Chris Sherlock wrote:

> Jean-Christophe Chazalette wrote:
>
> As I already told you, hosting material subject to copyright everywhere in
> the world except in the USA is a mistake. The fact some texts by Andr? Gide
> are PD-US because written before 1923 won't impress Gide's heirs. Foundation
> has certainly better things to do with its money than spending it in lost
> cases.
> villy ~~JC
> PS: and please please stop telling that the fact the servers are in the USA
> is good enough to strictly care only for the US law - with the Yahoo case,
> you should know better.  Foundation could be sued right here in Paris and
> should spend money on explaining how it comes that its site, reachable in
> France, offers copyrighted material for free.
>
> I was under the impression that the U.S. had treaties with France and in
> some circumstances will honour their laws. Is this the case or not?
>
> Chris
> TBSDY
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyright on Wikisource

Erik Moeller-2
In reply to this post by Yann Forget-2
Yann Forget:
> Hi,
>
> And oh, I forgot to say that if the new rule is to apply French laws to French
> language projects, then first do it on the French Wikipedia, which goes
> against French laws in many ways, the first of all by allowing "fair use",
> then it would be proper to do it on Wikisource.

I think we need to ask two key questions in every case:

1) What is the nationality of the uploader?
2) What is the nationality of the copyright holder of the work?

If the answer to either of these question is "French", then it seems to
me that there is a risk for the uploader, the French Chapter, or the
U.S. Foundation to be sued in a French court.

To me, this is independent of the language of the Wikimedia project in
question; the French Wikipedia is not inherently tied to the nation of
France, nor is the English Wikipedia tied to the United States.

Since the text(s) you would like to see reproduced were written by a
French author, I would advise against hosting them on our servers for
that reason. It's quite simple: Unless we explicitly deny access to this
content from French users, we provide them with illegal copies of this
material, and a French court is likely to find so. Denying access in
this fashion would obviously be undesirable.

As for the "fair use" policy of the French Wikipedia, I believe that the
policies in question should not be applicable to material created by
French copyright holders, unless there is a similar applicable "fair
use" exemption in French copyright law. In general, uploaders of French
nationality should be made aware that they may be in violation of French
law if they upload copyrighted material to an American server under the
U.S. "fair use" doctrine.

I'm in favor of limited fair use on all projects, simply because there
are materials (logos, cartoon characters etc.) of which we will never be
able to obtain reproductions under free licenses. On the other hand,
making all fair use images go through a review process is probably a
good idea. We need to find a reasonable balance and strive for
harmonization of said balance across the Wikimedia projects.

Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyright on Wikisource

SJ-5
In reply to this post by Yann Forget-2


On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Furthermore, our *goals* -- neverminding the legal problesm that
> Jean-Christophe Chazalette wrote about -- our *goals* include a very
> high degree of reusability.  Hosting materials that are subject to
> copyright everywhere in the world except in the USA is a mistake on the
> simple grounds that such work would not be redistributable anywhere else.
>
> This is why we should take a very very skeptical eye toward the use of
> "fair use" even in English.

In counterpoint, Wikipedia is a prime example of the importance of fair
use as a catalyst for better information and education.  To the extent
that the world is still working out the 'right' way to allow commentary,
satire, and analysis while protecting author's rights, it is relevant that
Wikipedia takes advantage of fair use.  Changing policy to stop doing so
would likewise influence those ongoing "fair use standards" debates.

SJ


> ! Chris Sherlock wrote:
>> Jean-Christophe Chazalette wrote:
>>
>> As I already told you, hosting material subject to copyright everywhere in
>> the world except in the USA is a mistake. The fact some texts by Andr? Gide
>> are PD-US because written before 1923 won't impress Gide's heirs. Foundation
>> has certainly better things to do with its money than spending it in lost
>> cases.
>> villy ~~JC
>> PS: and please please stop telling that the fact the servers are in the USA
>> is good enough to strictly care only for the US law - with the Yahoo case,
>> you should know better.  Foundation could be sued right here in Paris and
>> should spend money on explaining how it comes that its site, reachable in
>> France, offers copyrighted material for free.
>>
>> I was under the impression that the U.S. had treaties with France and in
>> some circumstances will honour their laws. Is this the case or not?
>>
>> Chris
>> TBSDY
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyright on Wikisource

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-2
Hoi,
The idea of fair use is broken when you make it as complicated as
this.Things are broken. They are broken because on the one hand the
en:wikipedia does not want to give something up ie "fair use"  and on
the other hand we do not want to consider licenses for Commons that
are legal, that allow us to have content that only the en:wikipedia
now has because of "fair use".

There is nothing fair about having content under "fair use" while it
cannot be had under a ND license and have it legally available for
other projects. In a previous threat about fair use people decided
that they do not want to hear about this.. That is an en:POV and it
makes for a parochical POV not the POV that does justice to the needs
of other projects ...

Thanks,
    GerardM


On 3/15/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yann Forget:
> > Hi,
> >
> > And oh, I forgot to say that if the new rule is to apply French laws to French
> > language projects, then first do it on the French Wikipedia, which goes
> > against French laws in many ways, the first of all by allowing "fair use",
> > then it would be proper to do it on Wikisource.
>
> I think we need to ask two key questions in every case:
>
> 1) What is the nationality of the uploader?
> 2) What is the nationality of the copyright holder of the work?
>
> If the answer to either of these question is "French", then it seems to
> me that there is a risk for the uploader, the French Chapter, or the
> U.S. Foundation to be sued in a French court.
>
> To me, this is independent of the language of the Wikimedia project in
> question; the French Wikipedia is not inherently tied to the nation of
> France, nor is the English Wikipedia tied to the United States.
>
> Since the text(s) you would like to see reproduced were written by a
> French author, I would advise against hosting them on our servers for
> that reason. It's quite simple: Unless we explicitly deny access to this
> content from French users, we provide them with illegal copies of this
> material, and a French court is likely to find so. Denying access in
> this fashion would obviously be undesirable.
>
> As for the "fair use" policy of the French Wikipedia, I believe that the
> policies in question should not be applicable to material created by
> French copyright holders, unless there is a similar applicable "fair
> use" exemption in French copyright law. In general, uploaders of French
> nationality should be made aware that they may be in violation of French
> law if they upload copyrighted material to an American server under the
> U.S. "fair use" doctrine.
>
> I'm in favor of limited fair use on all projects, simply because there
> are materials (logos, cartoon characters etc.) of which we will never be
> able to obtain reproductions under free licenses. On the other hand,
> making all fair use images go through a review process is probably a
> good idea. We need to find a reasonable balance and strive for
> harmonization of said balance across the Wikimedia projects.
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyright on Wikisource

Erik Moeller-2
GerardM:
> There is nothing fair about having content under "fair use" while it
> cannot be had under a ND license and have it legally available for
> other projects. In a previous threat about fair use people decided
> that they do not want to hear about this.. That is an en:POV and it
> makes for a parochical POV not the POV that does justice to the needs
> of other projects ...

Fair use should only be used when there is absolutely no chance that we
will get the content under a free license. I disagree with using a photo
of a living celebrity under "fair use", for example; I'd much rather see
"Wikimedia celebrity hunts" organized, as long as we make it clear that
we're talking about taking photos. ;-) It might also be worth
investigating how much it would cost to purchase the right to publish
photos that interest us under a free license.

The advocates of allowing ND seem to be in favor of putting it on the
same level as our free content licenses. This is a dangerous path to
follow, as it disincentivizes the use of less restrictive licenses.
Available statistics from Flickr and Creative Commons show that, when
given the choice, users are inclined to disallow derivative works or
commercial use, simply because they do not understand the complexity of
license incompatibility, and the illusion of additional control over a
work is not without appeal. Therefore it makes sense for the project to
clearly focus on a narrow definition of "free content".

On the other hand, if we allow ND in "very rare special circumstances",
we will find that they are likely to be the same under which we would
allow fair use, and there's no need for the special exception.

I agree with you that we should avoid a situation where the English
Wikipedia is allowed exceptionally broad fair use privileges, whereas
other projects are exceptionally restrictive. Harmonization is key.

Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyright on Wikisource

Delphine Ménard
In reply to this post by Chris Sherlock [TAL]
On 3/15/06, ! Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I was under the impression that the U.S. had treaties with France and in
> some circumstances will honour their laws. Is this the case or not?

Cicular 38b blablabla. See above in the thread.

Cheers,

Delphine
--
~notafish
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyright on Wikisource

Mark
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Furthermore, our *goals* -- neverminding the legal problesm that
>Jean-Christophe Chazalette wrote about -- our *goals* include a very
>high degree of reusability.  Hosting materials that are subject to
>copyright everywhere in the world except in the USA is a mistake on the
>simple grounds that such work would not be redistributable anywhere else.
>  
>
I agree with that, but there needs to be a balance short of "only host
materials that are freely redistributable in every single country in the
world", lest we end up having to follow the most restrictive copyright
laws in the world.  Under that interpretation, we could, for example,
never post the King James Version of the Bible, because in the United
Kingdom its publication is controlled in perpetuity by the Monarch.  Not
to mention all the many books we can't legally distribute in countries
like China for reasons unrelated to copyright.

-Mark

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyright on Wikisource

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-2
Hoi,
When we allow ND and possibly other specific licenses in those
circumstances where we allow some "fair use" on the English Wikipedia
we have several important improvements;
* The person or organisation that is entitled to license did the licensing
* The content can be used by all projects and not just the en:wikipedia

With our current practices organisations like Kennisnet would like to
see their logo with the Wikipedia article, they cannot allow us to
have it on Commons because it is a logo and it part of their trade
mark and consequently it restrict its usage. Kennisnet is not alone in
this. We need a license that allows for this. So far I only hear
arguments that we do not really want ND or fair use. And I largely
agree. But I do not hear anything what helps us solve the situation.
The ideology is first and foremost about creating encyclopedias in
many languages. Our ideology is in bringing the best information to
the people of this world in their language. It is important that this
information is free. But the freedoms associated with our content are
not all equally important. When particular data or images is ND, or
where the use is by necessity limiting the freedom associated with it
but allows for the legal distribution commercially it is in line with
what the Wikimedia Foundation stands for.

What are the arguments that speak in favour of "fair use" and are
against targeted use of ND and other specific licenses that allow for
the legal use that "fair use" denies us. What are these arguments but
dogma. Dogma that has precious little to do with what the WMF stands
for, believes in?

Thanks,
    GerardM


On 3/15/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> GerardM:
> > There is nothing fair about having content under "fair use" while it
> > cannot be had under a ND license and have it legally available for
> > other projects. In a previous threat about fair use people decided
> > that they do not want to hear about this.. That is an en:POV and it
> > makes for a parochical POV not the POV that does justice to the needs
> > of other projects ...
>
> Fair use should only be used when there is absolutely no chance that we
> will get the content under a free license. I disagree with using a photo
> of a living celebrity under "fair use", for example; I'd much rather see
> "Wikimedia celebrity hunts" organized, as long as we make it clear that
> we're talking about taking photos. ;-) It might also be worth
> investigating how much it would cost to purchase the right to publish
> photos that interest us under a free license.
>
> The advocates of allowing ND seem to be in favor of putting it on the
> same level as our free content licenses. This is a dangerous path to
> follow, as it disincentivizes the use of less restrictive licenses.
> Available statistics from Flickr and Creative Commons show that, when
> given the choice, users are inclined to disallow derivative works or
> commercial use, simply because they do not understand the complexity of
> license incompatibility, and the illusion of additional control over a
> work is not without appeal. Therefore it makes sense for the project to
> clearly focus on a narrow definition of "free content".
>
> On the other hand, if we allow ND in "very rare special circumstances",
> we will find that they are likely to be the same under which we would
> allow fair use, and there's no need for the special exception.
>
> I agree with you that we should avoid a situation where the English
> Wikipedia is allowed exceptionally broad fair use privileges, whereas
> other projects are exceptionally restrictive. Harmonization is key.
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyright on Wikisource

Sam Korn
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-2
On 3/15/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'd much rather see
> "Wikimedia celebrity hunts" organized, as long as we make it clear that
> we're talking about taking photos. ;-)

Does Daniel Brandt count as a celebrity?

--
Sam, who's going on a bear hunt
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyright on Wikisource

SJ-5
On 3/16/06, Sam Korn <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 3/15/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I'd much rather see
> > "Wikimedia celebrity hunts" organized, as long as we make it clear that
> > we're talking about taking photos. ;-)
>
> Does Daniel Brandt count as a celebrity?
>
> --
> Sam, who's going on a bear hunt

A frightening thought.

++SJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyright on Wikisource

Yann Forget-2
In reply to this post by Yann Forget-2
Hi,

Reading the answers, I deleted the works of Gide from the French Wikisource.

I am quite disappointed as I asked the very same question on Wikisource on
December 3rd, 2003, and no one has ever bothered to answer. 2003!!!

http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource_talk:Copyright

Actually, that's one of my first post on Wikisource and also one of the first
post on the whole project (the earliest post I could find is on November 24,
2003.)

Regards,

Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopedie libre
http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliotheque libre
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12