What's appropriate attribution?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
106 messages Options
1234 ... 6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

What's appropriate attribution?

Erik Moeller-4
The GFDL has specific attribution requirements that were designed for
software manuals. What's appropriate attribution for a wiki, where a
page can have thousands of authors, and a collection of pages is very
likely to? I would like to start a broad initial discussion on this
topic; it's likely that the issue will need to be raised more
specifically in the context of possible modifications to the GFDL or a
migration to CC-BY-SA.

The relevant GFDL clause states: "List on the Title Page, as authors,
one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the
modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of
the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors,
if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this
requirement."

Most people have chosen to ignore the "principal authors" requirement
and to try to attribute every author instead because there's no
obvious way to determine who the principal authors are. I remember a
few years back that Anthony tried a completely different approach,
where he created a full copy of Wikipedia (under the assumption that
it's a single GFDL work) and attributed it to five people on the
frontpage. Anthony, please correct me if my recollection is incorrect.

The community process that has developed with regard to GFDL
compliance on the web has generally tacitly favored a link to the
article and to its history as proper credit. But, for printed books,
publishers have generally wanted to be more in compliance with the
letter of the license. So, the Bertelsmann "Wikipedia in one volume"
includes a looong list of authors in a very tiny font.

Is that practical? How about Wikipedia articles on passenger
information systems (screens on subways, airplanes)? How about small
booklets where there isn't a lot of room for licensing information?
Should a good license for wikis make a distinction between print and
online uses?

I haven't heard anyone argue strongly for full inclusion of the
_license text_. But I'd like to hear opinions on the inclusion of
username lists.

My personal preference would be a system where we have a special
"credits" URL for each article, something like

http://en.wikipedia.org/credits/World_War_II

which would list authors and also provide full licensing information
for all media files. If we had a specific collection of articles, the
system could support this using collection IDs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/collection_credits/Bertelsmann_One_Volume_Encyclopedia

(These URLs are completely made up and have no basis in reality.)

The advantage that I see of such an approach is that it would allow us
to standardize and continually refine the way we display authorship
information, and benefit the free sharing of content with a very
lightweight process. The disadvantage (if it is perceived as such) is
that if we would officially recommend such attribution in printed
books, individual contributors would be less likely to see their
username in print. But we might see more print uses because it would
make the attribution more manageable.

It's also conceivable to require full author attribution for printed
collections of a certain length or printed in certain quantity. (The
GFDL has "in quantity" rules, but they do not seem to apply in any way
to the authorship information.)

Aside from what the legal implications of any given approach are, the
first question I think that needs to be answered is what's desirable.
Thoughts?
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

Re: What's appropriate attribution?

Thomas Dalton
2008/10/20 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:
> The GFDL has specific attribution requirements that were designed for
> software manuals. What's appropriate attribution for a wiki, where a
> page can have thousands of authors, and a collection of pages is very
> likely to? I would like to start a broad initial discussion on this
> topic; it's likely that the issue will need to be raised more
> specifically in the context of possible modifications to the GFDL or a
> migration to CC-BY-SA.

Excellent question, I think this is going to be a very interesting, if
long, discussion.

> The relevant GFDL clause states: "List on the Title Page, as authors,
> one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the
> modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of
> the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors,
> if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this
> requirement."
>
> Most people have chosen to ignore the "principal authors" requirement
> and to try to attribute every author instead because there's no
> obvious way to determine who the principal authors are. I remember a
> few years back that Anthony tried a completely different approach,
> where he created a full copy of Wikipedia (under the assumption that
> it's a single GFDL work) and attributed it to five people on the
> frontpage. Anthony, please correct me if my recollection is incorrect.

That's one of several dozen ways of interpreting the GFDL, how about
we ignore how things are done now and just look at how things should
be done in the future?

> The community process that has developed with regard to GFDL
> compliance on the web has generally tacitly favored a link to the
> article and to its history as proper credit. But, for printed books,
> publishers have generally wanted to be more in compliance with the
> letter of the license. So, the Bertelsmann "Wikipedia in one volume"
> includes a looong list of authors in a very tiny font.
>
> Is that practical? How about Wikipedia articles on passenger
> information systems (screens on subways, airplanes)? How about small
> booklets where there isn't a lot of room for licensing information?
> Should a good license for wikis make a distinction between print and
> online uses?

Online you can link to an off-site credits page which you can't do in
print or in off-line electronic versions, so I think a distinction is
a good idea. We want people to reuse our content as much as possible
which means we should make reusing it as easy as possible. Including
an appropriate link is far easier than attributing contributors
yourself. In print, that isn't possible, so they'll have to include
the names directly (a printed URL is pretty useless).

> I haven't heard anyone argue strongly for full inclusion of the
> _license text_. But I'd like to hear opinions on the inclusion of
> username lists.

Again, online you can link to an off-site copy of the license, in
print you can't, so I would support including the license text in
printed copies of large amounts of content (for a yet to be determined
definition of "large"). Smaller amounts of printed content should
include a much shorter summary of the license since that's all that is
practical.

> My personal preference would be a system where we have a special
> "credits" URL for each article, something like

Isn't that basically what we already have with the history page
(possibly reformatted at bit)? I think we should certainly keep
history pages.

> Aside from what the legal implications of any given approach are, the
> first question I think that needs to be answered is what's desirable.
> Thoughts?

The legal implications do certainly need to be considered, however.
Moral rights to attribution may well get in the way. Mike Godwin can
advise on US law, but someone needs to make official contact with
lawyers in other jurisdictions and get advice. Our content needs to be
reusable in any jurisdiction (to the extent possible, it's conceivable
that some jurisdictions will have laws that are completely
incompatible with our goals and we'll have to give them up as a lost
cause [a local chapter could lobby for a change in the law, of
course]). This mailing list is not the place for a detailed discussion
of the law, but that discussion does need to take place (between WMF,
CC, FSF and lots and lots of lawyers from all over the world - this
will probably cost a lot of money since you'll be lucky to find people
willing to work pro-bono is every significant jurisdiction, but is
essential).

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

Re: What's appropriate attribution?

John at Darkstar
Norwegian law says principal authors should be attributed, and I believe
its the correct thing to do. It is not a good reason to say that today
we can't identify those authors. Most of the articles I've been involved
 in writing has had very few principal authors, most of them only one or
two.

In Norwegian law the principal authors can choose what to do with the
article, even relicense it, without asking any of the other writers.

It should be interesting to make some statistics over how many principal
authors there are for articles from Wikipedia. I think the nom are
pretty few, even for those articles that has grown very large.

John

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

Re: What's appropriate attribution?

Thomas Dalton
> It should be interesting to make some statistics over how many principal
> authors there are for articles from Wikipedia. I think the nom are
> pretty few, even for those articles that has grown very large.

That would, indeed, be interesting, but it would require a definition
of "principal author".

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

Re: What's appropriate attribution?

phoebe ayers-3
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The GFDL has specific attribution requirements that were designed for
> software manuals. What's appropriate attribution for a wiki, where a
> page can have thousands of authors, and a collection of pages is very
> likely to? I would like to start a broad initial discussion on this
> topic; it's likely that the issue will need to be raised more
> specifically in the context of possible modifications to the GFDL or a
> migration to CC-BY-SA.

<snip>

I thought about this a fair amount when putting together "How
Wikipedia Works." We opted there for using the first five authors as
determined by this script:
http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl
precisely to avoid the pages-of-tiny-print problem (though there is a
certain satisfaction in seeing one's own name in print even if you
only copyedited an article once.) (see our full credits at:
http://howwikipediaworks.com/ape.html).

Of course, first-five doesn't solve much of anything in terms of true
attribution; there were certain cases where I knew those names were
people who had primarily reverted vandalism rather than the people who
had come up with the bulk of the ideas in the text (this is especially
true for policies, which often started with sweeping essays written by
an individual who was bringing together thoughts and practice back in
2003 or 2004). In a few important cases, the early history is lost to
the ages (and disk failure), and it's only through anecdote and
deduction that you'll figure out how, say, Larry Sanger contributed to
NPOV. I stuck to this algorithm anyway for the sake of consistency,
however. I think in practice, however, listing individual authors of
any particular article, whether you list only a few or all of them,
invariably overvalues some people's contributions, undervalues others,
and totally ignores anonymous contribs, and also doesn't do much for
preserving everyone's copyright claims since so many people are
completely pseudonymous.

So, stepping away from what the GFDL & CC currently specify, I think
that moving to a corporate model of citing authors makes sense. When
you contribute to Wikipedia, you're contributing to specific, discrete
pages. So what about using a page-level model citation like:

Credit: Contributors to "Foobar article." From Wikipedia, The Free
Encyclopedia. Accessed July 17, 2012. permanent URL here. List of
contributors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foobar/history.

And using either a perma-link to the history that's tied to the date
of the perma-link used, or some other kind of stable history/credits
link like Erik proposes? We keep this data and intend to keep it for
the future, presumably, so offering up a link to it seems reasonable
as long as the page-site combination is adequately referenced.

-- Phoebe

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

Re: What's appropriate attribution?

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by John at Darkstar
John at Darkstar wrote:

> Norwegian law says principal authors should be attributed, and I believe
> its the correct thing to do. It is not a good reason to say that today
> we can't identify those authors. Most of the articles I've been involved
>  in writing has had very few principal authors, most of them only one or
> two.
>
> In Norwegian law the principal authors can choose what to do with the
> article, even relicense it, without asking any of the other writers.
>
> It should be interesting to make some statistics over how many principal
> authors there are for articles from Wikipedia. I think the nom are
> pretty few, even for those articles that has grown very large.
>
> John
>  

In Finnish moral rights law, the right to be identified
as the author of ones work is inalienable and absolute,
and cannot be voided even through a contractual
transaction.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


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

Re: What's appropriate attribution?

Mike Godwin-3
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4

Thomas Dalton writes:

> The legal implications do certainly need to be considered, however.
> Moral rights to attribution may well get in the way. Mike Godwin can
> advise on US law, but someone needs to make official contact with
> lawyers in other jurisdictions and get advice.

FWIW, any lawyer who deals with copyright in any kind of international  
environment is aware of moral-rights issues. If specific questions and  
concerns come up, of course, I have a network of international lawyers  
I can reach out to.

>  This mailing list is not the place for a detailed discussion
> of the law, but that discussion does need to take place (between WMF,
> CC, FSF and lots and lots of lawyers from all over the world - this
> will probably cost a lot of money since you'll be lucky to find people
> willing to work pro-bono is every significant jurisdiction, but is
> essential).

I don't think you're correct to suppose that "lots and lots of  
lawyers" are required. Copyright is, after all, very largely  
harmonized among very many nations as a result of several  
international agreements. Also, since United States is a bit of an  
outlier when it comes to enforcement of moral rights, we wouldn't  
impose a U.S. norm on how to interpret or understand moral rights of  
attribution. In implementation, as it happens, I think the moral-
rights issue will turn out to be less of a practical problem than you  
imagine (because I don't think attribution problems will generate  
enough friction for us to worry about). Moral-rights issues tend to  
arise when substantial authorship and attribution questions are  
obvious and clear -- in short, not the kind of authorship and  
attribution issues that normally arise in a collaborative enterprise  
like a Wikimedia project.


--Mike





--Mike





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

Re: What's appropriate attribution?

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It's also conceivable to require full author attribution for printed
> collections of a certain length or printed in certain quantity. (The
> GFDL has "in quantity" rules, but they do not seem to apply in any way
> to the authorship information.)

This approach seems to me as a reasonable one. However, it has to be
defined well. If someone, let's say, prints the whole Wikipedia in
English, I don't see why not to print one more (or 10 more) books with
the list of authors. At the other side, it is true that it is not
reasonable to demand printing authors on a flier.

I've got one other, a very general idea about the solution. Here is the sketch:

- List of authors of particular articles should be printed
periodically. Yearly, or one in two or three years. Of course, we
should find some automatic way for gathering such data. (Maybe via
some specific user boxes.)
- Any printed book may refer to such periodical as the source of the
list of authors.
- Strictly speaking, this means that sources from Wikipedia in such
way may be used only from dumps which were sources for the printed
list of authors. If they are using newer articles, they should list
authors which contributed in the mean time. Generally, I think that
this approach is a reasonable one because it is not necessary anymore
to use the newest article to make a book about the most of the issues.
Otherwise, if someone is really willing to be up to date about some
current events, they should spend some more time in finding the rest
of the authors. Of course, we should make free software tools for
doing that.
- This is, also a good fund raising movement. If companies which are
willing to print books based on Wikipedia content are willing to have
such printed papers (and additions) once per month, then they should
give money to WMF to do so. If they are willing to have "the frozen
version" of Wikipedia for that time, they should give money for
servers; and so on.

But, it is not just related to Wikimedia. If Wikimedia introduces such
approach, supported by license, it may be a good source for funding
similar projects for keeping bibliographical data consistent. Which
is, at last, a very important issue in building a valid scientific
resource.

And, of course, it is not about fliers, it is not about full
encyclopedias. It is for the rest of usage. Defining what are the
borders is the task and it may be discussed a lot about it.

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

Re: What's appropriate attribution?

Birgitte_sb
In reply to this post by Jussi-Ville Heiskanen



--- On Mon, 10/20/08, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] What's appropriate attribution?
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Monday, October 20, 2008, 4:21 PM
> John at Darkstar wrote:
> > Norwegian law says principal authors should be
> attributed, and I believe
> > its the correct thing to do. It is not a good reason
> to say that today
> > we can't identify those authors. Most of the
> articles I've been involved
> >  in writing has had very few principal authors, most
> of them only one or
> > two.
> >
> > In Norwegian law the principal authors can choose what
> to do with the
> > article, even relicense it, without asking any of the
> other writers.
> >
> > It should be interesting to make some statistics over
> how many principal
> > authors there are for articles from Wikipedia. I think
> the nom are
> > pretty few, even for those articles that has grown
> very large.
> >
> > John
> >  
>
> In Finnish moral rights law, the right to be identified
> as the author of ones work is inalienable and absolute,
> and cannot be voided even through a contractual
> transaction.
>


I don't believe the right to be identified as an author is necessarily the same disscusion as the attribution appropriate for various formats. Publishing a work without any explict attribution to an author =! voiding that author's right to be identified as an author of the work.

Birgitte SB


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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

Re: What's appropriate attribution?

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
Hoi,
Think of the trees. Consider the enormous waste of paper and ink needed to
do justice to all the people who contribute. Consider where this data is
mostly used, I do argue that a clear reference to sources used and a link to
for instance the history pages should more then suffice.

Our aim is to provide information. Our aim is to provide the freedom to
continue on top of what came before. This link to an history and the
continuation of a work under the same license is what is really important.
The rest is effectively an ambiguous pumping of egos. Ambiguous because of
the lack of clarity whose ego to pump.
Thanks,
       Gerard

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The GFDL has specific attribution requirements that were designed for
> software manuals. What's appropriate attribution for a wiki, where a
> page can have thousands of authors, and a collection of pages is very
> likely to? I would like to start a broad initial discussion on this
> topic; it's likely that the issue will need to be raised more
> specifically in the context of possible modifications to the GFDL or a
> migration to CC-BY-SA.
>
> The relevant GFDL clause states: "List on the Title Page, as authors,
> one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the
> modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of
> the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors,
> if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this
> requirement."
>
> Most people have chosen to ignore the "principal authors" requirement
> and to try to attribute every author instead because there's no
> obvious way to determine who the principal authors are. I remember a
> few years back that Anthony tried a completely different approach,
> where he created a full copy of Wikipedia (under the assumption that
> it's a single GFDL work) and attributed it to five people on the
> frontpage. Anthony, please correct me if my recollection is incorrect.
>
> The community process that has developed with regard to GFDL
> compliance on the web has generally tacitly favored a link to the
> article and to its history as proper credit. But, for printed books,
> publishers have generally wanted to be more in compliance with the
> letter of the license. So, the Bertelsmann "Wikipedia in one volume"
> includes a looong list of authors in a very tiny font.
>
> Is that practical? How about Wikipedia articles on passenger
> information systems (screens on subways, airplanes)? How about small
> booklets where there isn't a lot of room for licensing information?
> Should a good license for wikis make a distinction between print and
> online uses?
>
> I haven't heard anyone argue strongly for full inclusion of the
> _license text_. But I'd like to hear opinions on the inclusion of
> username lists.
>
> My personal preference would be a system where we have a special
> "credits" URL for each article, something like
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/credits/World_War_II
>
> which would list authors and also provide full licensing information
> for all media files. If we had a specific collection of articles, the
> system could support this using collection IDs:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/collection_credits/Bertelsmann_One_Volume_Encyclopedia
>
> (These URLs are completely made up and have no basis in reality.)
>
> The advantage that I see of such an approach is that it would allow us
> to standardize and continually refine the way we display authorship
> information, and benefit the free sharing of content with a very
> lightweight process. The disadvantage (if it is perceived as such) is
> that if we would officially recommend such attribution in printed
> books, individual contributors would be less likely to see their
> username in print. But we might see more print uses because it would
> make the attribution more manageable.
>
> It's also conceivable to require full author attribution for printed
> collections of a certain length or printed in certain quantity. (The
> GFDL has "in quantity" rules, but they do not seem to apply in any way
> to the authorship information.)
>
> Aside from what the legal implications of any given approach are, the
> first question I think that needs to be answered is what's desirable.
> Thoughts?
> --
> Erik Möller
> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: What's appropriate attribution?

phoebe ayers-3
In reply to this post by Birgitte_sb
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Birgitte SB <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 10/20/08, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] What's appropriate attribution?
>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
>> Date: Monday, October 20, 2008, 4:21 PM
>> John at Darkstar wrote:
>> > Norwegian law says principal authors should be
>> attributed, and I believe
>> > its the correct thing to do. It is not a good reason
>> to say that today
>> > we can't identify those authors. Most of the
>> articles I've been involved
>> >  in writing has had very few principal authors, most
>> of them only one or
>> > two.
>> >
>> > In Norwegian law the principal authors can choose what
>> to do with the
>> > article, even relicense it, without asking any of the
>> other writers.
>> >
>> > It should be interesting to make some statistics over
>> how many principal
>> > authors there are for articles from Wikipedia. I think
>> the nom are
>> > pretty few, even for those articles that has grown
>> very large.
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>>
>> In Finnish moral rights law, the right to be identified
>> as the author of ones work is inalienable and absolute,
>> and cannot be voided even through a contractual
>> transaction.
>>
>
>
> I don't believe the right to be identified as an author is necessarily the same disscusion as the attribution appropriate for various formats. Publishing a work without any explict attribution to an author =! voiding that author's right to be identified as an author of the work.
>
> Birgitte SB

Agreed. I don't think anyone is suggesting that *wikipedia itself* is
doing away with the kind of attribution we currently provide; the
question is what standard reusers of content should be held to.
Arguably, the simpler the standard the more likely people are to
adhere to it. A minimum standard also wouldn't prevent anyone from
going above and beyond and crediting the entire list of authors, say,
if they wanted to.

-- phoebe

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

Re: What's appropriate attribution?

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Mike Godwin-3
2008/10/20 Mike Godwin <[hidden email]>:

>
> Thomas Dalton writes:
>
>> The legal implications do certainly need to be considered, however.
>> Moral rights to attribution may well get in the way. Mike Godwin can
>> advise on US law, but someone needs to make official contact with
>> lawyers in other jurisdictions and get advice.
>
> FWIW, any lawyer who deals with copyright in any kind of international
> environment is aware of moral-rights issues. If specific questions and
> concerns come up, of course, I have a network of international lawyers
> I can reach out to.

There is a difference between being aware of an issue and knowing how
that issue affects each jurisdiction. It's good to hear that you
already have a network of international lawyers to call on.

>>  This mailing list is not the place for a detailed discussion
>> of the law, but that discussion does need to take place (between WMF,
>> CC, FSF and lots and lots of lawyers from all over the world - this
>> will probably cost a lot of money since you'll be lucky to find people
>> willing to work pro-bono is every significant jurisdiction, but is
>> essential).
>
> I don't think you're correct to suppose that "lots and lots of
> lawyers" are required. Copyright is, after all, very largely
> harmonized among very many nations as a result of several
> international agreements. Also, since United States is a bit of an
> outlier when it comes to enforcement of moral rights, we wouldn't
> impose a U.S. norm on how to interpret or understand moral rights of
> attribution. In implementation, as it happens, I think the moral-
> rights issue will turn out to be less of a practical problem than you
> imagine (because I don't think attribution problems will generate
> enough friction for us to worry about). Moral-rights issues tend to
> arise when substantial authorship and attribution questions are
> obvious and clear -- in short, not the kind of authorship and
> attribution issues that normally arise in a collaborative enterprise
> like a Wikimedia project.

While copyright is largely harmonised, does that include moral rights?
From what I've heard, they seem to vary quite widely. I don't really
imagine anything about them, I don't know enough to, I just know it's
not an issue that should be dismissed without due consideration. It
really only takes one person to decide to cause a fuss and you end up
with a mess on your hands - I'm not sure it's wise to rely on
something not causing friction to get out of having to follow the law
to the letter.

The thing with experts is that you often need to contact them in order
to find out if there is anything worth contacting them about.

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

Re: What's appropriate attribution?

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
> What's appropriate attribution for a wiki, where a
> page can have thousands of authors, and a collection of pages is very
> likely to?

Wikipedia articles seldom have more than a few authors. Many even more
than a single copyright bearing author of the page text (plus a few
additional authors for illustrations).

Collections obviously have more authors in total, but I don't think
the situation is very different from a traditional dead tree
encyclopaedia, which typically has one or a few authors per article
and a great many authors in total in total.

One difference is that traditional encyclopaedias usually compensate
their authors financially while authors on Wikipedia receive only
positive Karma from furthering the social mission and the reputational
boost that comes from their good work having tractable attribution
that links their work back to them.

My long standing recommendation for free content licensing in the
context of collaborative works is well embodied in this
recommendation:

http://meta.wikimedia.oro/wiki/GFDL_suggestions#Proposed_attribution_text

What shouldn't be done is create rules which gives special privileged
to some parties for virtue of running a website (remember, websites
are not communities. The community may entirely leave and they should
not have to attribute their initial webhost for all eternity), and
failing to ensuring that there is a way to trace creations back to
their creators.

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

Re: What's appropriate attribution?

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Birgitte_sb
Birgitte SB wrote:

>
> --- On Mon, 10/20/08, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  
>> From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] What's appropriate attribution?
>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
>> Date: Monday, October 20, 2008, 4:21 PM
>> John at Darkstar wrote:
>>    
>>> Norwegian law says principal authors should be
>>>      
>> attributed, and I believe
>>    
>>> its the correct thing to do. It is not a good reason
>>>      
>> to say that today
>>    
>>> we can't identify those authors. Most of the
>>>      
>> articles I've been involved
>>    
>>>  in writing has had very few principal authors, most
>>>      
>> of them only one or
>>    
>>> two.
>>>
>>> In Norwegian law the principal authors can choose what
>>>      
>> to do with the
>>    
>>> article, even relicense it, without asking any of the
>>>      
>> other writers.
>>    
>>> It should be interesting to make some statistics over
>>>      
>> how many principal
>>    
>>> authors there are for articles from Wikipedia. I think
>>>      
>> the nom are
>>    
>>> pretty few, even for those articles that has grown
>>>      
>> very large.
>>    
>>> John
>>>  
>>>      
>> In Finnish moral rights law, the right to be identified
>> as the author of ones work is inalienable and absolute,
>> and cannot be voided even through a contractual
>> transaction.
>>
>>    
>
>
> I don't believe the right to be identified as an author is necessarily the same disscusion as the attribution appropriate for various formats. Publishing a work without any explict attribution to an author =! voiding that author's right to be identified as an author of the work.
>
>  

As a matter of fact, I don't believe this is accurate.

As I understand it, the "paternity right" in the
Finnish section on moral rights in law, implies
that publication without attribution, can happen
with explicit permission of the author, but the
author can rescind that permission at any time.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen



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

Re: What's appropriate attribution?

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
2008/10/20 Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]>:
> My long standing recommendation for free content licensing in the
> context of collaborative works is well embodied in this
> recommendation:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.oro/wiki/GFDL_suggestions#Proposed_attribution_text

I think this is a very good proposal. I like the proposed modification
to only require the five principal authors to be attributed if they
are provided to begin with: It should not be the obligation of
re-users to determine who the principal authors are.

This language would, arguably, do away with the 4pt author name
listings in some publications -- which some people may consider to be
a bad thing.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

Re: What's appropriate attribution?

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> As a matter of fact, I don't believe this is accurate.
>
> As I understand it, the "paternity right" in the
> Finnish section on moral rights in law, implies
> that publication without attribution, can happen
> with explicit permission of the author, but the
> author can rescind that permission at any time.
[snip]

That behaviour is, as I understand it, typical of moral rights (in
places which acknowledge them).  The notion is that you can't contract
away attribution (or other 'moral rights') any less than you can sell
yourself into slavery because attribution (like freedom) is a moral
right and not an economic right.

Some moral rights implementations are potentially very harmful to free
content as we know it: You wouldn't want to be forced to remove an
improved version of a document simply because a sour original author
has decided he dislikes you and that your enhancements are prejudicial
to his reputation. But attribution is not an example of a problematic
right, for the most part.

I think there is an second interrelated issue:  There is a notion in
some places that some nearly invisible and almost always unread "terms
of service" can represent an agreement to abandon your right of
attribution. I think this is bogus even in places where it is
attribution is 'only' an economic right.    However attribution is
handled the principle of least surprise should always be heeded.

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

Re: What's appropriate attribution?

Ray Saintonge
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Some moral rights implementations are potentially very harmful to free
> content as we know it: You wouldn't want to be forced to remove an
> improved version of a document simply because a sour original author
> has decided he dislikes you and that your enhancements are prejudicial
> to his reputation. But attribution is not an example of a problematic
> right, for the most part.
>
>  
What appears to be a big distinction between moral rights laws in
European countries and in English speaking countries is the burden of
proving that a change is indeed prejudicial to one's reputation.  In a
common law country the presumption of innocence implies that prejudice
must be proved.

Ec

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

Re: What's appropriate attribution?

John at Darkstar
In reply to this post by Birgitte_sb

>
> I don't believe the right to be identified as an author is necessarily the same disscusion as the attribution appropriate for various formats. Publishing a work without any explict attribution to an author =! voiding that author's right to be identified as an author of the work.
>
> Birgitte SB
>

Can you give an example?
John

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

Re: What's appropriate attribution?

John at Darkstar
In reply to this post by Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

> As I understand it, the "paternity right" in the
> Finnish section on moral rights in law, implies
> that publication without attribution, can happen
> with explicit permission of the author, but the
> author can rescind that permission at any time.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>

In Norway a few news wire companies does not attribute the journalists,
and it seems to be legal, but it is claimed at least by one person to be
due to their employment by the company. Then they transfers the rights
to the company. I can't see how a license could make the same thing
happen, but this would work somehow.

Note also that in Norway a principal author can make decissions against
the coauthors will

John

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

Re: What's appropriate attribution?

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
John at Darkstar wrote:

>> As I understand it, the "paternity right" in the
>> Finnish section on moral rights in law, implies
>> that publication without attribution, can happen
>> with explicit permission of the author, but the
>> author can rescind that permission at any time.
>>
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>>
>>    
>
> In Norway a few news wire companies does not attribute the journalists,
> and it seems to be legal, but it is claimed at least by one person to be
> due to their employment by the company. Then they transfers the rights
> to the company. I can't see how a license could make the same thing
> happen, but this would work somehow.
>
> Note also that in Norway a principal author can make decissions against
> the coauthors will
>
> John
>  

There is recent case law on this point in Finland, where it
was found that being a director of the movie did not make
it legal to make significant alterations to a movie manuscript
when shooting the movie, against the wishes of the
scriptwriter. [1] I understand that would be a shocking
result in Hollywood.

[1] "Riisuttu Mies" (the movie was given a stiff fine, and theatrical
distribution was forbid, though the scriptwriter has allowed
television showings and video distribution)


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
1234 ... 6