[Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

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

[Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

shi zhao
see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/

The Act contains changes to UK copyright law which permit the
commercial exploitation of images where information identifying the
owner is missing, so-called "orphan works", by placing the work into
what's known as "extended collective licensing" schemes. Since most
digital images on the internet today are orphans - the metadata is
missing or has been stripped by a large organisation - millions of
photographs and illustrations are swept into such schemes.

For the first time anywhere in the world, the Act will permit the
widespread commercial exploitation of unidentified work - the user
only needs to perform a "diligent search". But since this is likely to
come up with a blank, they can proceed with impunity. The Act states
that a user of a work can act as if they are the owner of the work
(which should be you) if they're given permission to do so by the
Secretary of State.

The Act also fails to prohibit sub-licensing, meaning that once
somebody has your work, they can wholesale it. This gives the green
light to a new content-scraping industry, an industry that doesn't
have to pay the originator a penny. Such is the consequence of
"rebalancing copyright", in reality.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

David Gerard-2
On 2 May 2013 04:06, shi zhao <[hidden email]> wrote:

> see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/


As usual, Orlowski is trolling for clicks. Here's the actual text:

http://niaccurshi.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/orphan-works-enterprise-and-regulatory.html


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

Craig Franklin
In reply to this post by shi zhao
If the Register hates it, that usually indicates to me that it is a
fantastic idea.
On 02/05/2013 1:07 PM, "shi zhao" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/
>
> The Act contains changes to UK copyright law which permit the
> commercial exploitation of images where information identifying the
> owner is missing, so-called "orphan works", by placing the work into
> what's known as "extended collective licensing" schemes. Since most
> digital images on the internet today are orphans - the metadata is
> missing or has been stripped by a large organisation - millions of
> photographs and illustrations are swept into such schemes.
>
> For the first time anywhere in the world, the Act will permit the
> widespread commercial exploitation of unidentified work - the user
> only needs to perform a "diligent search". But since this is likely to
> come up with a blank, they can proceed with impunity. The Act states
> that a user of a work can act as if they are the owner of the work
> (which should be you) if they're given permission to do so by the
> Secretary of State.
>
> The Act also fails to prohibit sub-licensing, meaning that once
> somebody has your work, they can wholesale it. This gives the green
> light to a new content-scraping industry, an industry that doesn't
> have to pay the originator a penny. Such is the consequence of
> "rebalancing copyright", in reality.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

Mathias Schindler-2
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Craig Franklin
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> If the Register hates it, that usually indicates to me that it is a
> fantastic idea.

The main issues with the EU orphan works directive is that projects
like Wikipedia are not among the priviledged entities and the set of
rights that can be obtained for using such orpahn works is far too
limited. Countries implementing this directive have little choice to
fix both issues.

Mathias

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
David Gerard, 02/05/2013 08:35:
> As usual, Orlowski is trolling for clicks. Here's the actual text:
>
> http://niaccurshi.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/orphan-works-enterprise-and-regulatory.html

If that's it, the law is completely useless, it just parrots general EU
regulations. The big question in Europe is what qualifies as a "diligent
search": I don't know if as usual UK wants to decide on its own, in any
case it would be useful for WMUK to ask a committee or whatever to
assist the Secretary of State in the decision and to be appointed/heard
in such committee. Usually they only listen to publishers and sometimes
librarians.

Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

Fæ
On 2 May 2013 07:54, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:
...
> If that's it, the law is completely useless, it just parrots general EU
> regulations. The big question in Europe is what qualifies as a "diligent
> search": I don't know if as usual UK wants to decide on its own, in any case
> it would be useful for WMUK to ask a committee or whatever to assist the
> Secretary of State in the decision and to be appointed/heard in such
> committee. Usually they only listen to publishers and sometimes librarians.
>
> Nemo

Nemo, don't underestimate the power of us. :-)

If a GLAM or a magazine with a long term digital archive (just two of
some pressing cases in my mind) would like help with logging an
official record of a "diligent search", then they could do much worse
than contacting us regulars on Wikimedia Commons and/or the UK Chapter
for assistance in generating and validating its content. For any
serious collection of orphan works of high public value, I would be
happy to spend several hours of my volunteer time contributing to a
wiki-based public search report and gaining opinions and additional
searches by our volunteers, many having highly developed understanding
of copyright, the nature of orphan works and where to check for
copyright claims and registration.

A couple of such example public reports would be highly likely to be
adopted by government as an reference case studies of implementation.

Shall we just do it?

Cheers,
Fae
--
[hidden email] http://j.mp/faewm
Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

geni
In reply to this post by Federico Leva (Nemo)
On 2 May 2013 07:54, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If that's it, the law is completely useless, it just parrots general EU
> regulations. The big question in Europe is what qualifies as a "diligent
> search": I don't know if as usual UK wants to decide on its own, in any
> case it would be useful for WMUK to ask a committee or whatever to assist
> the Secretary of State in the decision and to be appointed/heard in such
> committee. Usually they only listen to publishers and sometimes librarians.
>


The reality is that the law is of no real interest to us since such works
can't end up under a free license.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

geni
In reply to this post by shi zhao
On 2 May 2013 04:06, shi zhao <[hidden email]> wrote:

> see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/
>


Dude this is Wikimedia-l. Home to rather a lot of copyright nerds. If there
was actually a significant problem with the law don't you think we would
have raised the issue back when it was first proposed?

Seriously I've seen this topic floating around on various photography
sites. Any idea who is behind the campaign and why?

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

Tomasz Ganicz
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
2013/5/2 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:
> On 2 May 2013 04:06, shi zhao <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/
>
>
> As usual, Orlowski is trolling for clicks. Here's the actual text:
>
> http://niaccurshi.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/orphan-works-enterprise-and-regulatory.html
>

And The Economist POV:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/05/orphan-works

--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by Fæ
Fae, 02/05/2013 09:20:

> On 2 May 2013 07:54, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> ...
>> If that's it, the law is completely useless, it just parrots general EU
>> regulations. The big question in Europe is what qualifies as a "diligent
>> search": I don't know if as usual UK wants to decide on its own, in any case
>> it would be useful for WMUK to ask a committee or whatever to assist the
>> Secretary of State in the decision and to be appointed/heard in such
>> committee. Usually they only listen to publishers and sometimes librarians.
>>
>> Nemo
>
> Nemo, don't underestimate the power of us. :-)  [...]
>
> A couple of such example public reports would be highly likely to be
> adopted by government as an reference case studies of implementation.
>
> Shall we just do it?

A document describing best practices for diligent search in Wikimedia
projects can be interesting, but for what Mathias says there is little
use in it as part of this initiative, unless UK government wants to act
in EU to find a common ground making the directive useful [hahahahah].

However, "diligent search" translates to "the state considers me a good
guy and if the 25th grade cousin of the author suddenly pops up asking
me money I can laugh at him". We only try to prove PD status, so we have
little experience with this sort of risk balancing.

Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

Tomasz Ganicz
In reply to this post by geni
2013/5/2 geni <[hidden email]>:

> On 2 May 2013 04:06, shi zhao <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/
>>
>
>
> Dude this is Wikimedia-l. Home to rather a lot of copyright nerds. If there
> was actually a significant problem with the law don't you think we would
> have raised the issue back when it was first proposed?
>
> Seriously I've seen this topic floating around on various photography
> sites. Any idea who is behind the campaign and why?
>

Actually in Poland there is a public discussion about adoption of EU
directive about orphan works in which we are active together with
several other NGO's workong together under umbrela of Coalition for
Open Education:

http://koed.org.pl/blog/2013/04/30/dziela-osierocone-i-dziela-niedostepne-w-handlu-stanowisko-koalicji-otwartej-edukacji/

Although EU directive is not very good for us - the EU countries still
have some freedom how to adopt it to its local law. Therefore as part
of our involvement in public discussion we wrote a detailed opinion
how it could be adpoted in Poland to make orphan works as freely as
possible available...

http://koed.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/stanowisko_KOED_dziela_osierocone.pdf

Probably substantial part of it could be used in other EU countries as well...


--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by geni
On 2 May 2013 08:37, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 2 May 2013 07:54, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> If that's it, the law is completely useless, it just parrots general EU
>> regulations. The big question in Europe is what qualifies as a "diligent
>> search": I don't know if as usual UK wants to decide on its own, in any
>> case it would be useful for WMUK to ask a committee or whatever to assist
>> the Secretary of State in the decision and to be appointed/heard in such
>> committee. Usually they only listen to publishers and sometimes librarians.

> The reality is that the law is of no real interest to us since such works
> can't end up under a free license.


This is, of course, false. Ridiculous copyright lengths and permission
culture in general are very much a problem for us, and something it's
strongly in our interest to push back on in general.


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by geni
On 2 May 2013 08:40, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Seriously I've seen this topic floating around on various photography
> sites. Any idea who is behind the campaign and why?


The same photography groups who think people shouldn't be allowed to
release pictures under CC by-sa as it undermines the income of
professional photographers.

(This is another example of why this sort of thing is very much in our
direct interest.)


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

geni
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 2 May 2013 10:54, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2 May 2013 08:37, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 2 May 2013 07:54, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >> If that's it, the law is completely useless, it just parrots general EU
> >> regulations. The big question in Europe is what qualifies as a "diligent
> >> search": I don't know if as usual UK wants to decide on its own, in any
> >> case it would be useful for WMUK to ask a committee or whatever to
> assist
> >> the Secretary of State in the decision and to be appointed/heard in such
> >> committee. Usually they only listen to publishers and sometimes
> librarians.
>
> > The reality is that the law is of no real interest to us since such works
> > can't end up under a free license.
>
>
> This is, of course, false. Ridiculous copyright lengths and permission
> culture in general are very much a problem for us, and something it's
> strongly in our interest to push back on in general.
>
>
However orphan works legislation is a hack designed to allow long copyright
terms to keep working without upsetting even more people. Its of no use to
us.



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

David Gerard-2
On 2 May 2013 11:24, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> However orphan works legislation is a hack designed to allow long copyright
> terms to keep working without upsetting even more people. Its of no use to
> us.


I think you're wrong there. But it's an arguable point, not one that
goes either way.


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

Tim Starling-2
In reply to this post by Federico Leva (Nemo)
On 02/05/13 18:07, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> A document describing best practices for diligent search in Wikimedia
> projects can be interesting, but for what Mathias says there is little
> use in it as part of this initiative, unless UK government wants to
> act in EU to find a common ground making the directive useful
> [hahahahah].

Orlowski is outraged at the idea of being able to use orphan works by
paying a fee into a pool, because he thinks the fee will be too low.
He is afraid of a world where the low fees paid to the pool will
incentise users to be less diligent in their search for an owner.

So imagine what he (and his supporters) would think of the idea of
giving orphan works away for free, irrevocably, as would be required
for Wikimedia use.

-- Tim Starling



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

[Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

Andrew Gray-3
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 2 May 2013 11:25, David Gerard <[hidden email] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> On 2 May 2013 11:24, geni <[hidden email] <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
>> However orphan works legislation is a hack designed to allow long
copyright
>> terms to keep working without upsetting even more people. Its of no use
to
>> us.
>
> I think you're wrong there. But it's an arguable point, not one that
> goes either way.

I would agree it's a hack, but there are two major advantages to having it:

a) it's a hack that *works*, and will produce results. It may not work for
us, not directly, but it will enable content to be made available where it
previously could not be. Free licensing is exactly the same thing - a hack
to allow us to do what we want within the framework of the existing law,
rather than a fundamental change to the underlying system.

b) it's a start. We will have it, the sky won't fall, and in ten years time
we can say - look, the sky didn't fall, the principle is now accepted, how
about we refine the process?

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email] <javascript:;>


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

Luis Villa
In reply to this post by Tomasz Ganicz
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 2013/5/2 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:
> > On 2 May 2013 04:06, shi zhao <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/
> >
> >
> > As usual, Orlowski is trolling for clicks. Here's the actual text:
> >
> > http://niaccurshi.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/orphan-works-enterprise-and-regulatory.html
> >
>
> And The Economist POV:
>
> http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/05/orphan-works
>

Another, more considered, piece, from Andres Guadamuz:

http://www.technollama.co.uk/has-the-uk-abolished-copyright-analysis-of-new-orphan-work-legislation


--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about
the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for
legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a
lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their
personal capacity.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

Tom Morris-5
There's also this:

http://www.create.ac.uk/blog/2013/05/06/orphans-much-ado-about-what/ 

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


On Saturday, 4 May 2013 at 16:32, Luis Villa wrote:

> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])> wrote:
> >
> > 2013/5/2 David Gerard <[hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])>:
> > > On 2 May 2013 04:06, shi zhao <[hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])> wrote:
> > >
> > > > see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/
> > >
> > >
> > > As usual, Orlowski is trolling for clicks. Here's the actual text:
> > >
> > > http://niaccurshi.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/orphan-works-enterprise-and-regulatory.html
> >
> > And The Economist POV:
> >
> > http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/05/orphan-works
>
> Another, more considered, piece, from Andres Guadamuz:
>
> http://www.technollama.co.uk/has-the-uk-abolished-copyright-analysis-of-new-orphan-work-legislation
>
>
> --
> Luis Villa
> Deputy General Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
>
> NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
> have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about
> the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for
> legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a
> lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their
> personal capacity.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

Nikolas Becker-2
Hi everyone!

I am sorry for replying to this week-old thread, but I just read it and
wanted to take the chance adding a short hint:

There is a (relatively new) Wikimedia working group on EU policy [1] with
an explicit "task force" for the orphan works issue:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Orphan_Works

It seems like some of you are interested in this topic, so maybe you would
like to join them.
The working group also set up a "letterbox" where you can drop any
news/link/whatever that you consider relevant:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Letterbox

Best
Nikolas

[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy




2013/5/7 Tom Morris <[hidden email]>

> There's also this:
>
> http://www.create.ac.uk/blog/2013/05/06/orphans-much-ado-about-what/
>
> --
> Tom Morris
> <http://tommorris.org/>
>
>
> On Saturday, 4 May 2013 at 16:32, Luis Villa wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email](mailto:
> [hidden email])> wrote:
> > >
> > > 2013/5/2 David Gerard <[hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])>:
> > > > On 2 May 2013 04:06, shi zhao <[hidden email] (mailto:
> [hidden email])> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As usual, Orlowski is trolling for clicks. Here's the actual text:
> > > >
> > > >
> http://niaccurshi.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/orphan-works-enterprise-and-regulatory.html
> > >
> > > And The Economist POV:
> > >
> > > http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/05/orphan-works
> >
> > Another, more considered, piece, from Andres Guadamuz:
> >
> >
> http://www.technollama.co.uk/has-the-uk-abolished-copyright-analysis-of-new-orphan-work-legislation
> >
> >
> > --
> > Luis Villa
> > Deputy General Counsel
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
> >
> > NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
> > have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about
> > the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for
> > legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a
> > lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their
> > personal capacity.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--
Nikolas Becker

Supervisory Board
Wikimedia Deutschland

Tel.: +49 (0)151 122 500 63

-------------------------------------
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V.
Obentrautstr. 72
10963 Berlin

Tel.: +49 (0)30-219 158 26-0
www.wikimedia.de
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l