[Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[Mike Dupont]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Kirill Lokshin
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> legitimate reuse of cultural works (of the sort that is of interest to the
> Wikimedia movement) is unlikely to be stifled by an attribution requirement
> along the lines of CC-by or similar licenses.

very good point, basically the bsd.
but look people, are you saying that wikipedia editors should limit
its own copyright to 14 years? how would that work practically?

Would it be possible to add clauses like that to to license? would
that be incompatible with cc-by-sa?



--
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3

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

[John Vandenberg]

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Johan Jönsson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2012/5/22 Bjoern Hoehrmann <[hidden email]>:
>
>> You don't say who "we" are, but in case some people think the Wikimedia
>> Foundation should position itself on "copyright" matters much beyond
>> which licenses it is using and why, and which problems Wikipedia might
>> be facing due to various aspects of "copyright", the likely result is,
>> "This made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as
>> a bad move" especially if it comes as specific as the suggestion above.
>
> Yes. Very much so.

I agree.  What problems does Wikipedia face?  Some of the Wikipedia,
and other projects, allow non-free media where they are necessary to
support the goals of the project.  Some projects don't allow non-free
media, but most of our mission can be adequately achieved with plain
text, and should be obtained in pure text in order to meet the needs
of people with vision impairments that mean they can't see images.

A limit on copyright increases our pool of resources at some point in
the future (5 years, 14 years, etc) as no government will attempt to
push existing works into the public domain by having a retroactive new
copyright duration.

My bet is that our firm commitment to CC-BY-SA will mean that the
copyright landscape will be quite different in 14 years.

If we want to have an extra impact, I think we should campaign to
redefine January 1 as (Anti-)Mickey Mouse Day, and promote it as the
day that Mickey Mouse Act / Disney has prevented the commons from
being enriched.  We could list all of the works which would be public
domain in the US if Mickey Mouse had never existed.

--
John Vandenberg

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

[Amory Meltzer]

Less Mickey Mouse, more Sonny Bono.  Beloved cartoon characters from
everyone's childhood are harder to campaign against than one of Cher's
ex-husbands.

~A


On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:31 PM, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> If we want to have an extra impact, I think we should campaign to
> redefine January 1 as (Anti-)Mickey Mouse Day, and promote it as the
> day that Mickey Mouse Act / Disney has prevented the commons from
> being enriched.  We could list all of the works which would be public
> domain in the US if Mickey Mouse had never existed.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[John Vandenberg]

People dont care about Sonny Bono, so it wont get any prominence.
Most people dont care about copyright.  Most people do have kids and
do know who Mickey Mouse is.  Tar Mickey Mouse with the actions of his
protectors and the world will listen.

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Amory Meltzer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Less Mickey Mouse, more Sonny Bono.  Beloved cartoon characters from
> everyone's childhood are harder to campaign against than one of Cher's
> ex-husbands.
>
> ~A
>
>
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:31 PM, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> If we want to have an extra impact, I think we should campaign to
>> redefine January 1 as (Anti-)Mickey Mouse Day, and promote it as the
>> day that Mickey Mouse Act / Disney has prevented the commons from
>> being enriched.  We could list all of the works which would be public
>> domain in the US if Mickey Mouse had never existed.
>>
>> --
>> John Vandenberg
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

--
John Vandenberg

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

[geni]

On 23 May 2012 01:37, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> People dont care about Sonny Bono, so it wont get any prominence.
> Most people dont care about copyright.  Most people do have kids and
> do know who Mickey Mouse is.  Tar Mickey Mouse with the actions of his
> protectors and the world will listen.

However for most of the world their copyright terms are as they are
for other reasons.

But this is all irrelevant. The title of this thread is pretty much
correct. People don't care about copyright. The idea that this is due
to the length is pretty laughable when you look at what copyrights
they are most likely to break.


--
geni

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

[David Gerard-2]

On 23 May 2012 08:16, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 23 May 2012 01:37, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> People dont care about Sonny Bono, so it wont get any prominence.
>> Most people dont care about copyright.  Most people do have kids and
>> do know who Mickey Mouse is.  Tar Mickey Mouse with the actions of his
>> protectors and the world will listen.

> However for most of the world their copyright terms are as they are
> for other reasons.


That is, of course, not the case: the US raises the term then works
very hard to get its copyright laws "harmonised" internationally. So
that is actually the reason.


- d.

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

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:21 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 23 May 2012 08:16, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 23 May 2012 01:37, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >> People dont care about Sonny Bono, so it wont get any prominence.
> >> Most people dont care about copyright.  Most people do have kids and
> >> do know who Mickey Mouse is.  Tar Mickey Mouse with the actions of his
> >> protectors and the world will listen.
>
> > However for most of the world their copyright terms are as they are
> > for other reasons.
>
>
> That is, of course, not the case: the US raises the term then works
> very hard to get its copyright laws "harmonised" internationally. So
> that is actually the reason.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>

Doesn't matter the nation, David.  Nobody cares[1].

1. < http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Nobody_cares >

--
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:21 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 23 May 2012 08:16, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 23 May 2012 01:37, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >> People dont care about Sonny Bono, so it wont get any prominence.
> >> Most people dont care about copyright.  Most people do have kids and
> >> do know who Mickey Mouse is.  Tar Mickey Mouse with the actions of his
> >> protectors and the world will listen.
>
> > However for most of the world their copyright terms are as they are
> > for other reasons.
>
>
> That is, of course, not the case: the US raises the term then works
> very hard to get its copyright laws "harmonised" internationally. So
> that is actually the reason.
>
>
> - d.
>
>

Non-sarcastic reply, it's not about the US or harmony.  It's about
understanding, and the expectations of understanding international
copyright law through the web is a high specialized skill not even really
developed.  We have regular copyright complaints to Wikimedia sites from
people that lack a general understanding of the national and international
copyright rights. Often times these are questions that no lawyer I know can
genuinely answer, because there isn't one for their particular country.  We
just have to wing it and explain what we know.

--
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[George Herbert]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Mike Linksvayer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Maximising artistic production is a terrible goal for policy.

Why?

The whole idea of copyright - as the US started seeing it, in our
constitution and thence onwards, is properly rewarding creative people
for their efforts.  Free content and culture and information -
Wikipedia included - is great.  I don't see any need to forcibly tear
down the whole edifice of commercial paid arts in the process.

In particular, the public has no problem with individual musicians and
writers being rewarded for their efforts.  Trying to overcome that
would mean making enemies out of most of the populace on this when we
don't have to.

The authors I've talked to about this see books turned into films in
the 8-10-15-20 year timeframes and want at least that much, and also
notice that the Tolkein estate are making out like bandits from the
recent trilogy, which was far longer downstream.

> At the
> very least civil liberty, equality, and security need to be considered
> as well. If 15 years is indeed the correct length for maximising
> artistic production, the correct length, considering more important
> things, is much less. 14 years is indeed a meme and again would be a
> vast improvement. But given 14 years or any other shortening is
> totally infeasible in the near term, I'd prefer a bit more visionary
> advocacy that resets the debate, again putting artistic production at
> a far lower priority than freedom etc.

Nobody's made a big public case for any shorter term.

That's a mistake.  The whole CC and free content movement needs to
step up.  We need Cory and other luminaries advocating for a sane
term, and 14 is a good round number that works for everyone except
insane anti-IP bigots on one hand and Hollywood on the other, whom I
feel little remaining sympathy for.


--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]

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

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:33 AM, George Herbert <[hidden email]>wrote:

>
>
> Nobody's made a big public case for any shorter term.
>
> That's a mistake.  The whole CC and free content movement needs to
> step up.  We need Cory and other luminaries advocating for a sane
> term, and 14 is a good round number that works for everyone except
> insane anti-IP bigots on one hand and Hollywood on the other, whom I
> feel little remaining sympathy for.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> [hidden email]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>

I think the larger point is that regard for copyright coming to a death
knell by the internet, and the care from Nobody is how people make money
based on this concept.  Should musicians less rely on publishing rights and
yield them to CC and publish them on Wikisource, and rely on touring and
willing-to-pay agreements with commercial use?  That's just an example, we
have the recent issue of bringing United States tax-payer funded research
being released under strict commercial licensing in order to make money for
publishers and not the researchers or the source of the funds.  It's about
letting go of the old source of economics for publishers and embracing a
new model.

--
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[David Gerard-2]

On 23 May 2012 08:33, George Herbert <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The whole idea of copyright - as the US started seeing it, in our
> constitution and thence onwards, is properly rewarding creative people
> for their efforts.


Well, actually it was for the benefit of printers. As is reflected in
copyright today, which is for the benefit of publishers.


>  Free content and culture and information -
> Wikipedia included - is great.  I don't see any need to forcibly tear
> down the whole edifice of commercial paid arts in the process.


I think this is a straw man rendering of the position, but I do think
that forcibly tearing down the whole edifice would be a vast
improvement in the world.

> In particular, the public has no problem with individual musicians and
> writers being rewarded for their efforts.  Trying to overcome that
> would mean making enemies out of most of the populace on this when we
> don't have to.
> Nobody's made a big public case for any shorter term.
> That's a mistake.  The whole CC and free content movement needs to
> step up.  We need Cory and other luminaries advocating for a sane
> term, and 14 is a good round number that works for everyone except
> insane anti-IP bigots on one hand and Hollywood on the other, whom I
> feel little remaining sympathy for.

That's why a term that doesn't blatantly take the piss might have a
chance, yes. 14 years may be all they end up getting.


- d.

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

[geni]

On 23 May 2012 08:21, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> That is, of course, not the case: the US raises the term then works
> very hard to get its copyright laws "harmonised" internationally. So
> that is actually the reason.

Most of the world was on life+50 or greater before the latest round of
US copyright extensions and before 1989 the US didn't really engage
with international copyright very much.

Of the various common copyright terms Life+70 tends to have more to do
with Germany and the EU than anything else. Life+50 tends to be due to
a mix of laws acquired from various empires (the most useful map when
dealing with copyright is often
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_Empires.svg) or the bern
convention. The US might try and get countries to enforce their laws
but the actual terms are more likely to be colonial relics (although
why north korea's copyright law looks so German will remain a mystery)



--
geni

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

[geni]

On 23 May 2012 08:46, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> That's why a term that doesn't blatantly take the piss might have a
> chance, yes. 14 years may be all they end up getting.

Why? Thats not going to help people who want to see game of thrones
without an HBO subscription or want to see avengers without paying.
Telling people they are legitimately grab early friends episodes isn't
going to stop them acquiring copies of the big bang theory.


--
geni

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

[Cristian Consonni]

2012/5/21 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:

> On 21 May 2012 20:59, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> We need a shorter term *for free licenses*.
>> Right now those licenses piggyback on an unreasonably long-term notion
>> of "exclusive authorial control of reuse".
>> People who support free knowledge and free licenses should be among
>> the first to do away with that term.
>
>
> Richard Stallman thinks five years (Swedish Pirate Party) is too short:
>
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html
>
> - though he likes ten years:
>
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html

Two gemstones, thanks for poiting those out.

Cristian

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

[Andrew Gray-3]

On Monday, 21 May 2012, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
> > O'Reilly is offering works under 14 years (c), thence CC-by
>
> Campaign idea: set up a named class of license for friendly groups
> like O'Reilly that are committing to 14 years, which are defined by
> terming out in no more than 14 years to CC0 or equivalent PD
> declarations.
>

A thought on naming.

The obvious way to badge such a license is through Creative Commons; but
we've spilled vast amounts of metaphorical ink over "is NC free?" and "is
ND free?", and one of the results is a good deal of confusion over what a
"free license" is, what we should campaign for, etc etc etc.

If we throw into the mix *another* license from the same stable, the
situation gets even more muddled. The inevitable vague descriptions ("this
work is under a creative commons license" with no definition or link is
surprisingly common) will encompass a much wider range of use cases - "do
what you like, just credit me" and "all rights utterly reserved until 2025"
will be under the same umbrella.

- Andrew.


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

[John Vandenberg]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Monday, 21 May 2012, Samuel Klein wrote:
>>
>> > O'Reilly is offering works under 14 years (c), thence CC-by
>>
>> Campaign idea: set up a named class of license for friendly groups
>> like O'Reilly that are committing to 14 years, which are defined by
>> terming out in no more than 14 years to CC0 or equivalent PD
>> declarations.
>>
>
> A thought on naming.
>
> The obvious way to badge such a license is through Creative Commons; but
> we've spilled vast amounts of metaphorical ink over "is NC free?" and "is
> ND free?", and one of the results is a good deal of confusion over what a
> "free license" is, what we should campaign for, etc etc etc.
>
> If we throw into the mix *another* license from the same stable, the
> situation gets even more muddled. The inevitable vague descriptions ("this
> work is under a creative commons license" with no definition or link is
> surprisingly common) will encompass a much wider range of use cases - "do
> what you like, just credit me" and "all rights utterly reserved until 2025"
> will be under the same umbrella.
>
> - Andrew.

I'd love to see -NC and -ND dropped from the CC catalog, but I doubt
its going to happen.

It would be nice if -NC and -ND had a time limit on them, after which
the work becomes CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.

--
John Vandenberg

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

[Tom Morris-5]

On 28 May 2012 22:37, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'd love to see -NC and -ND dropped from the CC catalog, but I doubt
> its going to happen.
>
> It would be nice if -NC and -ND had a time limit on them, after which
> the work becomes CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.
>

Although NC and ND cause pain for Wikipedians and Commonists and so
on, I'd actually not be a big fan of getting rid of them.

NC and ND give people a chance to dip their toe into free culture
licensing. Then upon finding that their leg hasn't been bitten off by
ravenous sharks and that actually mostly everything is fine, we can
come along and nudge them into upgrading.

See, for instance, the UK government: many government departments
published images under NC/ND. And then when nobody got fired for it,
they pass the Open Government License, which is a free content license
very much like CC BY.*

The question is: does NC/ND give people an excuse not to go for a
freer license, or does it give them a stepping stone towards freer
license from no licensing? It'd be nice if we could have some evidence
on this rather than anecdote trading. ;-)

NC and ND do have some uses. For instance, the very common use case of
publishing an academic paper. Yes, CC BY would be better. But BY-ND is
still pretty useful for the most common use case for a lot of academic
papers, namely photocopying a paper for a whole class of students...

(Plus getting rid of NC and ND won't mean that people won't stop
licensing works under NC/ND. There's a huge load of NC/ND work out
there already.)

* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OGL

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

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