Proposal: Addition to the general disclaimer

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

Proposal: Addition to the general disclaimer

Howard Cheng
I would like to propose additions to the general disclaimer found in the
footer of all Wikimedia sites.

Currently on Commons, there's a {{personality rights}} template that is
applied to photos of living or recently deceased people to inform
potential downloaders that this photo may not be entirely usable for
them depending their intended use and whatever jurisdiction they happen
to be living in.

This templates are applied inconsistently to images that probably should
have them. Meanwhile, [[WP:NDA]] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NDA>
specifically cautions against the use of disclaimers, one reason being
that inconsistent use could potentially open us to legal exposure.

Note that we already have text about trademarks (at least in en-WP and
Commons -- I haven't checked other sites).

Thus, I would like to see something about personality rights in images
in the general disclaimer, rather than having to apply this template to
each and every photo of a person to whom personality rights may apply.

Thoughts?

Thanks.
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Cheng
http://www.howcheng.com/
Wise-cracking quote goes here.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Addition to the general disclaimer

Casey Brown-3
Isn't the general disclaimer a local thing rather than a global one?
I think this is a matter for the individual communities, not the
Foundation.

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Howard Cheng <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would like to propose additions to the general disclaimer found in the
> footer of all Wikimedia sites.
>
> Currently on Commons, there's a {{personality rights}} template that is
> applied to photos of living or recently deceased people to inform
> potential downloaders that this photo may not be entirely usable for
> them depending their intended use and whatever jurisdiction they happen
> to be living in.
>
> This templates are applied inconsistently to images that probably should
> have them. Meanwhile, [[WP:NDA]] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NDA>
> specifically cautions against the use of disclaimers, one reason being
> that inconsistent use could potentially open us to legal exposure.
>
> Note that we already have text about trademarks (at least in en-WP and
> Commons -- I haven't checked other sites).
>
> Thus, I would like to see something about personality rights in images
> in the general disclaimer, rather than having to apply this template to
> each and every photo of a person to whom personality rights may apply.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks.
> --
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> Howard Cheng
> http://www.howcheng.com/
> Wise-cracking quote goes here.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Addition to the general disclaimer

Thomas Dalton
On 11/04/2008, Casey Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Isn't the general disclaimer a local thing rather than a global one?
>  I think this is a matter for the individual communities, not the
>  Foundation.

It's a legal matter, so it probably does fall on the foundation.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Addition to the general disclaimer

Michael Snow-3
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 11/04/2008, Casey Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> Isn't the general disclaimer a local thing rather than a global one?
>>  I think this is a matter for the individual communities, not the
>>  Foundation.
>>    
> It's a legal matter, so it probably does fall on the foundation.
>  
To the best of my knowledge, the foundation has not created any of the
existing disclaimers or dictated their contents. That makes them
entirely community products, subject to the same process as any other
wiki page. I'll defer to our lawyer if he thinks it should be otherwise,
but that's how I understand the situation.

--Michael Snow


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Addition to the general disclaimer

brian.mcneil-2
I took it upon myself to edit the English Wikinews disclaimer to qualify
that not all pictures are as free or similarly licensed as the text.

So, yes, a community issue; likely one where you simply need to be bold and
work from the revised wording to a consensus.


Brian McNeil

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Snow
Sent: 12 April 2008 20:28
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Addition to the general disclaimer

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 11/04/2008, Casey Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> Isn't the general disclaimer a local thing rather than a global one?
>>  I think this is a matter for the individual communities, not the
>>  Foundation.
>>    
> It's a legal matter, so it probably does fall on the foundation.
>  
To the best of my knowledge, the foundation has not created any of the
existing disclaimers or dictated their contents. That makes them
entirely community products, subject to the same process as any other
wiki page. I'll defer to our lawyer if he thinks it should be otherwise,
but that's how I understand the situation.

--Michael Snow


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Addition to the general disclaimer

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Michael Snow-3
On 4/12/08, Michael Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > On 11/04/2008, Casey Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Isn't the general disclaimer a local thing rather than a global one?
> >>  I think this is a matter for the individual communities, not the
> >>  Foundation.
> >>
> > It's a legal matter, so it probably does fall on the foundation.
> >
> To the best of my knowledge, the foundation has not created any of the
> existing disclaimers or dictated their contents. That makes them
> entirely community products, subject to the same process as any other
> wiki page. I'll defer to our lawyer if he thinks it should be otherwise,
> but that's how I understand the situation.
>
> --Michael Snow

If memory serves, there have been situations when stuff analogous
to the disclaimers has gone at least mildly - but sufficiently in any
case - awry, for the foundation to take interest in their goings on, but as
far as recall (and I wouldn't trust my memory further than I can throw
it :-), in each case it wasn't a situation of the foundation pouncing
on the project, but use of roundabout, gentle suasion, very low key.

Trusting each community to be sensible about things and
explaining things from the general mission point of view to
them. In general, personally I think the foundation can afford to
talk softly, and not really even measure how big their stick is.

The question of what the legal status of those documents is
I think should remain as unstated as possible. I think they are
communication to the reader, which is intended to be the people
who do the work in the communities, making sure there are as
few as possible avenues for our readers to believe there is some
thing they are entitled to, implicitly or not, which they should not
feel entitled to, nor for their own benefit make a mistake about
what we really are.

But if The Foundations lawyer feels a compelling need to spell
out precisely what the disclaimer status is and thus take the
disclaimers explicitly under its aegis, or completely distance
itself from them; I certainly cannot argue with that. It would
surprise me though.

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Addition to the general disclaimer

Florence Devouard-3
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

> On 4/12/08, Michael Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2008, Casey Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't the general disclaimer a local thing rather than a global one?
>>>>  I think this is a matter for the individual communities, not the
>>>>  Foundation.
>>>>
>>> It's a legal matter, so it probably does fall on the foundation.
>>>
>> To the best of my knowledge, the foundation has not created any of the
>> existing disclaimers or dictated their contents. That makes them
>> entirely community products, subject to the same process as any other
>> wiki page. I'll defer to our lawyer if he thinks it should be otherwise,
>> but that's how I understand the situation.
>>
>> --Michael Snow
>
> If memory serves, there have been situations when stuff analogous
> to the disclaimers has gone at least mildly - but sufficiently in any
> case - awry, for the foundation to take interest in their goings on, but as
> far as recall (and I wouldn't trust my memory further than I can throw
> it :-), in each case it wasn't a situation of the foundation pouncing
> on the project, but use of roundabout, gentle suasion, very low key.
>
> Trusting each community to be sensible about things and
> explaining things from the general mission point of view to
> them. In general, personally I think the foundation can afford to
> talk softly, and not really even measure how big their stick is.

How nicely phrased :-)


> The question of what the legal status of those documents is
> I think should remain as unstated as possible. I think they are
> communication to the reader, which is intended to be the people
> who do the work in the communities, making sure there are as
> few as possible avenues for our readers to believe there is some
> thing they are entitled to, implicitly or not, which they should not
> feel entitled to, nor for their own benefit make a mistake about
> what we really are.
>
> But if The Foundations lawyer feels a compelling need to spell
> out precisely what the disclaimer status is and thus take the
> disclaimers explicitly under its aegis, or completely distance
> itself from them; I certainly cannot argue with that. It would
> surprise me though.
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

Agreed.
I just made a tweak to the disclaimer of commons, to clarify that
Commons was "hosted" rather than "provided" by WMF; as well as to
mention a wikimedia email address (rather than a wikia address) for the
designated agent (who really should not be Jimbo anymore).

My feeling is that all projects and all languages should have a
similar-looking paragraph mentionning the Foundation as host provider;
and providing the appropriate contact, in particular a proper address
consistant project-wide (right now, commons mentions the SF address,
whilst the WMF site stills mentions the Florida address).

Aside from this little paragraph, it seems to me the community of each
project should be 100% in charge of what is put in the disclaimer.

Ant


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Addition to the general disclaimer

Casey Brown-3
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  and providing the appropriate contact, in particular a proper address
>  consistant project-wide (right now, commons mentions the SF address,
>  whilst the WMF site stills mentions the Florida address).
>

Hrm, I don't think that is something we can just update.  I asked Cary
about it when we updated the "Contact us" page with the San Francisco
address, and we thought that we'd need another signed letter from
Congress to change the address from St. Pete to San Fran.

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Addition to the general disclaimer

Brad Patrick
If you really are changing designated agents be sure to have Godwin send in
a new form to the government.  You don't just change it on the wiki.  The
Copyright Office needs a piece of paper or email to change its records.

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Casey Brown <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >  and providing the appropriate contact, in particular a proper address
> >  consistant project-wide (right now, commons mentions the SF address,
> >  whilst the WMF site stills mentions the Florida address).
> >
>
> Hrm, I don't think that is something we can just update.  I asked Cary
> about it when we updated the "Contact us" page with the San Francisco
> address, and we thought that we'd need another signed letter from
> Congress to change the address from St. Pete to San Fran.
>
> --
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>
> ---
> Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent
> to
> this address will probably get lost.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Addition to the general disclaimer

Sarah-128
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If you really are changing designated agents be sure to have Godwin send in
>  a new form to the government.  You don't just change it on the wiki.  The
>  Copyright Office needs a piece of paper or email to change its records.

We need to know who the designated agent is so that it's accurate in
the BLP policy.

Is this still correct?

Jimmy Wales, Designated Agent
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
146 2nd St N, # 310
St. Petersburg FL 33701
United States
Fax: +1(727)258-0207

Sarah

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Addition to the general disclaimer

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by Casey Brown-3
Casey Brown wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>  and providing the appropriate contact, in particular a proper address
>>  consistant project-wide (right now, commons mentions the SF address,
>>  whilst the WMF site stills mentions the Florida address).
>>
>
> Hrm, I don't think that is something we can just update.  I asked Cary
> about it when we updated the "Contact us" page with the San Francisco
> address, and we thought that we'd need another signed letter from
> Congress to change the address from St. Pete to San Fran.

I did not change this information. I am merely pointing out to it :-)

ant


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Addition to the general disclaimer

Florence Devouard-3
Florence Devouard wrote:

> Casey Brown wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>  and providing the appropriate contact, in particular a proper address
>>>  consistant project-wide (right now, commons mentions the SF address,
>>>  whilst the WMF site stills mentions the Florida address).
>>>
>> Hrm, I don't think that is something we can just update.  I asked Cary
>> about it when we updated the "Contact us" page with the San Francisco
>> address, and we thought that we'd need another signed letter from
>> Congress to change the address from St. Pete to San Fran.
>
> I did not change this information. I am merely pointing out to it :-)
>
> ant


Hello again

just for the record....

WAS 4.250 pointed out

"you may care to read [http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/ The US
Government's copyright office's page on Online Service Providers -
Service Provider Designation of Agent to Receive Notification of Claims
of Infringement]. Certain rules must be followed in order to take
advantage of the protections afforded by the [[Digital Millennium
Copyright Act]]. For example, "An Interim Designation or an Amended
Designation must be accompanied by an $80 fee".
[http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/agents/wikimedf.pdf Our former filing
in 2005] shows we paid $30 then.   [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User
talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 03:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)"

The email address indicated on the filling is not used anymore. It is
completely spammed. It goes to an OTRS queue. The good news is that
someone seems to check it from time to time, because the 79 emails (78
spam) were less than 2 days old. Still, no one should use this address
anymore.

Ant


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l