Intellectual Property Office consultation

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

Intellectual Property Office consultation

Tom Morris-5
Today, I briefly flicked through the Intellectual Property Office consultation.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-2011-copyright

I didn't know it was running until today.

I'm thinking of sending in a few answers to a few of the questions
asked, but I'm wondering if there is any interested in rapidly
producing a WMUK response. The closing date is tomorrow, so if there
is any interest, we'd need to act super fast.

I'd suggest broadly the issues that are probably of direct interest to
Wikimedia are as follows:

1. On orphan works, making the case for much older orphan works to go
out of copyright rather than entering "orphan limbo". The proposed
commercially-reusable orphan limbo is fine for commercial reusers like
broadcasters or newspapers: it just means they have to do some due
diligence and they can then use orphan works, safe in the knowledge
that if the owner actually does turn up, they can pay market rate for
it.

2. Also on orphan works, pointing out that "non-commercial" exceptions
aren't actually that useful, as the moral intuition they are trying to
tap into doesn't actually fall along the non-commercial vs. commercial
line but along the acting for the common good vs. private profiteering
line, and there are commercial uses that are for the common good (for
instance, the Internet Archive might send out a book van charging 50p
a copy for on-demand printed books. Commercial use, it could
potentially turn a profit, although hardly one that's going to make
Brewster Kahle into Bill Gates.)

3. On extended collective licensing and collecting societies, we
should probably make clear what position, say, photographers or
musicians who produce CC works for use in Wikimedia projects are in.
And how Wikimedia works would fit in with a collective licensing
situation: if someone were to take a photo of mine from Commons that's
under CC BY SA, and uses it outside of the terms of the license,
should they be able to pay for it through a collective licensing
arrangement or through a collecting society? Part of the point of CC
BY SA and free culture is to encourage people to use the works under
the terms of the license.

4. On the exceptions to copyright, it seems there's a pretty
uncontroversial Wikimedian take on most of them. Specifically of
interest I'd say would be the "Use of works for quotation and
reporting current events", which is something that Wikinewsies (and
people who write Wikipedia articles about current affairs) would find
useful. And I'd say the public administration thing we should probably
support too: it seems reasonable to think that Wikimedia might want to
host rights-cleared work from the UK government that are under
discussion in there.

Any thoughts on responding?

--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intellectual Property Office consultation

Jon Davies
Well spotted Tom - your thoughts seem good to me - what do other think?

We could certainly submit something tomorrow but would have to be fast  
about it.

Quoting Tom Morris <[hidden email]>:

> Today, I briefly flicked through the Intellectual Property Office  
> consultation.
>
> http://www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-2011-copyright
>
> I didn't know it was running until today.
>
> I'm thinking of sending in a few answers to a few of the questions
> asked, but I'm wondering if there is any interested in rapidly
> producing a WMUK response. The closing date is tomorrow, so if there
> is any interest, we'd need to act super fast.
>
> I'd suggest broadly the issues that are probably of direct interest to
> Wikimedia are as follows:
>
> 1. On orphan works, making the case for much older orphan works to go
> out of copyright rather than entering "orphan limbo". The proposed
> commercially-reusable orphan limbo is fine for commercial reusers like
> broadcasters or newspapers: it just means they have to do some due
> diligence and they can then use orphan works, safe in the knowledge
> that if the owner actually does turn up, they can pay market rate for
> it.
>
> 2. Also on orphan works, pointing out that "non-commercial" exceptions
> aren't actually that useful, as the moral intuition they are trying to
> tap into doesn't actually fall along the non-commercial vs. commercial
> line but along the acting for the common good vs. private profiteering
> line, and there are commercial uses that are for the common good (for
> instance, the Internet Archive might send out a book van charging 50p
> a copy for on-demand printed books. Commercial use, it could
> potentially turn a profit, although hardly one that's going to make
> Brewster Kahle into Bill Gates.)
>
> 3. On extended collective licensing and collecting societies, we
> should probably make clear what position, say, photographers or
> musicians who produce CC works for use in Wikimedia projects are in.
> And how Wikimedia works would fit in with a collective licensing
> situation: if someone were to take a photo of mine from Commons that's
> under CC BY SA, and uses it outside of the terms of the license,
> should they be able to pay for it through a collective licensing
> arrangement or through a collecting society? Part of the point of CC
> BY SA and free culture is to encourage people to use the works under
> the terms of the license.
>
> 4. On the exceptions to copyright, it seems there's a pretty
> uncontroversial Wikimedian take on most of them. Specifically of
> interest I'd say would be the "Use of works for quotation and
> reporting current events", which is something that Wikinewsies (and
> people who write Wikipedia articles about current affairs) would find
> useful. And I'd say the public administration thing we should probably
> support too: it seems reasonable to think that Wikimedia might want to
> host rights-cleared work from the UK government that are under
> discussion in there.
>
> Any thoughts on responding?
>
> --
> Tom Morris
> <http://tommorris.org/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>



--
Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK.  07976 935 986
tweet @jonatreesdavies

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited.
Wiki UK Ltd is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England  
and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513
Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House,  56-64 Leonard Street,  
London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom.
Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who  
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent  
non-profit organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor  
responsibility for its contents.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intellectual Property Office consultation

Deryck Chan
In reply to this post by Tom Morris-5
Sounds good, go ahead?

On 19 March 2012 12:50, Tom Morris <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Today, I briefly flicked through the Intellectual Property Office consultation.
>
> http://www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-2011-copyright
>
> I didn't know it was running until today.
>
> I'm thinking of sending in a few answers to a few of the questions
> asked, but I'm wondering if there is any interested in rapidly
> producing a WMUK response. The closing date is tomorrow, so if there
> is any interest, we'd need to act super fast.
>
> I'd suggest broadly the issues that are probably of direct interest to
> Wikimedia are as follows:
>
> 1. On orphan works, making the case for much older orphan works to go
> out of copyright rather than entering "orphan limbo". The proposed
> commercially-reusable orphan limbo is fine for commercial reusers like
> broadcasters or newspapers: it just means they have to do some due
> diligence and they can then use orphan works, safe in the knowledge
> that if the owner actually does turn up, they can pay market rate for
> it.
>
> 2. Also on orphan works, pointing out that "non-commercial" exceptions
> aren't actually that useful, as the moral intuition they are trying to
> tap into doesn't actually fall along the non-commercial vs. commercial
> line but along the acting for the common good vs. private profiteering
> line, and there are commercial uses that are for the common good (for
> instance, the Internet Archive might send out a book van charging 50p
> a copy for on-demand printed books. Commercial use, it could
> potentially turn a profit, although hardly one that's going to make
> Brewster Kahle into Bill Gates.)
>
> 3. On extended collective licensing and collecting societies, we
> should probably make clear what position, say, photographers or
> musicians who produce CC works for use in Wikimedia projects are in.
> And how Wikimedia works would fit in with a collective licensing
> situation: if someone were to take a photo of mine from Commons that's
> under CC BY SA, and uses it outside of the terms of the license,
> should they be able to pay for it through a collective licensing
> arrangement or through a collecting society? Part of the point of CC
> BY SA and free culture is to encourage people to use the works under
> the terms of the license.
>
> 4. On the exceptions to copyright, it seems there's a pretty
> uncontroversial Wikimedian take on most of them. Specifically of
> interest I'd say would be the "Use of works for quotation and
> reporting current events", which is something that Wikinewsies (and
> people who write Wikipedia articles about current affairs) would find
> useful. And I'd say the public administration thing we should probably
> support too: it seems reasonable to think that Wikimedia might want to
> host rights-cleared work from the UK government that are under
> discussion in there.
>
> Any thoughts on responding?
>
> --
> Tom Morris
> <http://tommorris.org/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intellectual Property Office consultation

Jon Davies
In reply to this post by Tom Morris-5
Tom - nobody has commented on this one way or another. You should  
probably go ahead in your own name.


Quoting Tom Morris <[hidden email]>:

> Today, I briefly flicked through the Intellectual Property Office  
> consultation.
>
> http://www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-2011-copyright
>
> I didn't know it was running until today.
>
> I'm thinking of sending in a few answers to a few of the questions
> asked, but I'm wondering if there is any interested in rapidly
> producing a WMUK response. The closing date is tomorrow, so if there
> is any interest, we'd need to act super fast.
>
> I'd suggest broadly the issues that are probably of direct interest to
> Wikimedia are as follows:
>
> 1. On orphan works, making the case for much older orphan works to go
> out of copyright rather than entering "orphan limbo". The proposed
> commercially-reusable orphan limbo is fine for commercial reusers like
> broadcasters or newspapers: it just means they have to do some due
> diligence and they can then use orphan works, safe in the knowledge
> that if the owner actually does turn up, they can pay market rate for
> it.
>
> 2. Also on orphan works, pointing out that "non-commercial" exceptions
> aren't actually that useful, as the moral intuition they are trying to
> tap into doesn't actually fall along the non-commercial vs. commercial
> line but along the acting for the common good vs. private profiteering
> line, and there are commercial uses that are for the common good (for
> instance, the Internet Archive might send out a book van charging 50p
> a copy for on-demand printed books. Commercial use, it could
> potentially turn a profit, although hardly one that's going to make
> Brewster Kahle into Bill Gates.)
>
> 3. On extended collective licensing and collecting societies, we
> should probably make clear what position, say, photographers or
> musicians who produce CC works for use in Wikimedia projects are in.
> And how Wikimedia works would fit in with a collective licensing
> situation: if someone were to take a photo of mine from Commons that's
> under CC BY SA, and uses it outside of the terms of the license,
> should they be able to pay for it through a collective licensing
> arrangement or through a collecting society? Part of the point of CC
> BY SA and free culture is to encourage people to use the works under
> the terms of the license.
>
> 4. On the exceptions to copyright, it seems there's a pretty
> uncontroversial Wikimedian take on most of them. Specifically of
> interest I'd say would be the "Use of works for quotation and
> reporting current events", which is something that Wikinewsies (and
> people who write Wikipedia articles about current affairs) would find
> useful. And I'd say the public administration thing we should probably
> support too: it seems reasonable to think that Wikimedia might want to
> host rights-cleared work from the UK government that are under
> discussion in there.
>
> Any thoughts on responding?
>
> --
> Tom Morris
> <http://tommorris.org/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>



--
Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK.  07976 935 986
tweet @jonatreesdavies

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited.
Wiki UK Ltd is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England  
and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513
Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House,  56-64 Leonard Street,  
London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom.
Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who  
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent  
non-profit organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor  
responsibility for its contents.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intellectual Property Office consultation

Tom Morris-5
On 20 March 2012 09:22, Jon Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Tom - nobody has commented on this one way or another. You should probably
> go ahead in your own name.
>

I might do so. It's a lot of work, and today is the first day I've had
when I might have a chance to get away from behind my keyboard. ;-)

I'll have a try at responding in a personal capacity this evening, if
I've got the time and energy to do so.

For future consultations of this sort, it might be an idea if the
board and other WMUKers were to pass some kind of resolution that,
unless there's reason to think that our interests don't align with,
say, the Open Rights Group, WMUK would just sign on to their
consultation responses.

--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intellectual Property Office consultation

Gordon Joly
In reply to this post by Jon Davies
On 20/03/2012 09:22, Jon Davies wrote:
> Tom - nobody has commented on this one way or another. You should
> probably go ahead in your own name.
>
Are you sure? Didn't Jimbo send WMUK a "heads up"?

Gordo

--

Gordon Joly
[hidden email]
http://www.joly.org.uk/
Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intellectual Property Office consultation

Jon Davies
In reply to this post by Tom Morris-5
Thanks Tom - really we should have been way ahead of this with deadlnes etc.
Our fault.
Quoting Tom Morris <[hidden email]>:

> On 20 March 2012 09:22, Jon Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Tom - nobody has commented on this one way or another. You should probably
>> go ahead in your own name.
>>
>
> I might do so. It's a lot of work, and today is the first day I've had
> when I might have a chance to get away from behind my keyboard. ;-)
>
> I'll have a try at responding in a personal capacity this evening, if
> I've got the time and energy to do so.
>
> For future consultations of this sort, it might be an idea if the
> board and other WMUKers were to pass some kind of resolution that,
> unless there's reason to think that our interests don't align with,
> say, the Open Rights Group, WMUK would just sign on to their
> consultation responses.
>
> --
> Tom Morris
> <http://tommorris.org/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>



--
Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK.  07976 935 986
tweet @jonatreesdavies

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited.
Wiki UK Ltd is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England  
and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513
Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House,  56-64 Leonard Street,  
London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom.
Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who  
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent  
non-profit organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor  
responsibility for its contents.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intellectual Property Office consultation

Chris Keating-2
I was planning to take this forward, and sent an email to this very list on this subject on 27 December.

However, I ended up using the energy I could have spent on this on the Wikimedia fundraising debate instead...

Chris

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intellectual Property Office consultation

David Gerard-2
Is it feasible for the Board to all say today "whatever Tom writes,
WMUK will endorse"?

(I'm sure there are ways for that not to pass constitutional muster,
I'm looking for ways it can ...)


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intellectual Property Office consultation

Jon Davies
I have asked - good prompt David.

PS
Hope you get to meet Stevie soon to talk about comms.  You can explain  
how he can develop a radiant circle of goodness of his own!

Quoting David Gerard <[hidden email]>:

> Is it feasible for the Board to all say today "whatever Tom writes,
> WMUK will endorse"?
>
> (I'm sure there are ways for that not to pass constitutional muster,
> I'm looking for ways it can ...)
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>



--
Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK.  07976 935 986
tweet @jonatreesdavies

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited.
Wiki UK Ltd is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England  
and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513
Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House,  56-64 Leonard Street,  
London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom.
Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who  
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent  
non-profit organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor  
responsibility for its contents.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intellectual Property Office consultation

Michael Peel-4
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2

On 20 Mar 2012, at 10:35, David Gerard wrote:

> Is it feasible for the Board to all say today "whatever Tom writes,
> WMUK will endorse"?
>
> (I'm sure there are ways for that not to pass constitutional muster,
> I'm looking for ways it can ...)

Probably not in that sense, but if it were developed by the community on-wiki then it should be fairly straight forward for the board to quickly approve it for Jon to send in a copy officially from WMUK, or to point out issues that need to be resolved before that could be done.

Thanks,
Mike


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intellectual Property Office consultation

Jon Davies
If it is done by 4 then I will get it in.
Quoting Michael Peel <[hidden email]>:

>
> On 20 Mar 2012, at 10:35, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> Is it feasible for the Board to all say today "whatever Tom writes,
>> WMUK will endorse"?
>>
>> (I'm sure there are ways for that not to pass constitutional muster,
>> I'm looking for ways it can ...)
>
> Probably not in that sense, but if it were developed by the  
> community on-wiki then it should be fairly straight forward for the  
> board to quickly approve it for Jon to send in a copy officially  
> from WMUK, or to point out issues that need to be resolved before  
> that could be done.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>



--
Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK.  07976 935 986
tweet @jonatreesdavies

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited.
Wiki UK Ltd is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England  
and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513
Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House,  56-64 Leonard Street,  
London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom.
Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who  
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent  
non-profit organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor  
responsibility for its contents.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intellectual Property Office consultation

Steve Virgin
In reply to this post by Michael Peel-4

I would agree with Mike's suggestion - and would support a community-driven
Wiki sourced response too

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Peel
Sent: 20 March 2012 14:40
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Intellectual Property Office consultation


On 20 Mar 2012, at 10:35, David Gerard wrote:

> Is it feasible for the Board to all say today "whatever Tom writes,
> WMUK will endorse"?
>
> (I'm sure there are ways for that not to pass constitutional muster,
> I'm looking for ways it can ...)

Probably not in that sense, but if it were developed by the community
on-wiki then it should be fairly straight forward for the board to quickly
approve it for Jon to send in a copy officially from WMUK, or to point out
issues that need to be resolved before that could be done.

Thanks,
Mike


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intellectual Property Office consultation

Thomas Morton
Time is short though - the closing date it tomorrow :)

It will have to be a snappy piece of collaboration.

Tom

On 20 March 2012 14:53, steve virgin <[hidden email]> wrote:

I would agree with Mike's suggestion - and would support a community-driven
Wiki sourced response too

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Peel
Sent: 20 March 2012 14:40
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Intellectual Property Office consultation


On 20 Mar 2012, at 10:35, David Gerard wrote:

> Is it feasible for the Board to all say today "whatever Tom writes,
> WMUK will endorse"?
>
> (I'm sure there are ways for that not to pass constitutional muster,
> I'm looking for ways it can ...)

Probably not in that sense, but if it were developed by the community
on-wiki then it should be fairly straight forward for the board to quickly
approve it for Jon to send in a copy officially from WMUK, or to point out
issues that need to be resolved before that could be done.

Thanks,
Mike


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intellectual Property Office consultation

Richard Symonds-3
In reply to this post by Steve Virgin
Page is up at
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Property_Office_Consultation.
Jon will be pasting Tom's text in there shortly, if that's OK!

Richard Symonds
Office&  Development Manager
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0992
--
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Charitable Company
Registered in England and Wales, No: 6741827. Charity No:1144513 Office: 4th Floor, Development House,  56-64 Leonard Street,
London EC2A 4LT.
Wikimedia UK is the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate
Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent non-profit
organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for
its contents.


On 20/03/2012 14:53, steve virgin wrote:

> I would agree with Mike's suggestion - and would support a community-driven
> Wiki sourced response too
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Peel
> Sent: 20 March 2012 14:40
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Intellectual Property Office consultation
>
>
> On 20 Mar 2012, at 10:35, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> Is it feasible for the Board to all say today "whatever Tom writes,
>> WMUK will endorse"?
>>
>> (I'm sure there are ways for that not to pass constitutional muster,
>> I'm looking for ways it can ...)
> Probably not in that sense, but if it were developed by the community
> on-wiki then it should be fairly straight forward for the board to quickly
> approve it for Jon to send in a copy officially from WMUK, or to point out
> issues that need to be resolved before that could be done.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intellectual Property Office consultation

Gordon Joly
In reply to this post by Thomas Morton
On 20/03/2012 14:58, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Time is short though - the closing date it tomorrow :)
>
> It will have to be a snappy piece of collaboration.
>
> Tom
Some consultations will consider late submissions. But you are right.
Work to the deadline.

Gordo


--

Gordon Joly
[hidden email]
http://www.joly.org.uk/
Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org