I hope you don't think that an individual contacting a company is going to do anything to change their minds about what is perceived about their frivolous claim.
You didn't address my extension of that notice which would read something like "If you believe this material IS in the public domain than follow these steps...." Do we really want every contributor to be an expert in the copyright laws of any particular nation that might have a company exerting some obscure claim? So I would recommend we add the very wording that you Mike gave us on this list, to that page. I think that would address the follow-up (or initial however you see it) objection. The point not being completely that the take-down was in error, but only that part of it was in error. And now we're going to provide the method by which that part can be restored. That was my point. That is what's missing from the take-down notice. -----Original Message----- From: Mike Godwin <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Wed, Jun 2, 2010 5:24 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Office action On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:08 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: What harm do you foresee in replacing deleted pages with a declaration like YouTube uses, "This Video has been deleted based on a copyright claim by The Disney Corporation" ? And then an extension of "If you believe this is public domain material then restore the page and include this disclaimer blah blah blah" We aimed to do something like this. Can you say what you dislike about the current notices, which include the contact information for Gallimard? --Mike = _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
