hi all, re the old WMDE press release:
a lot depends on how such a law is drafted. In Germany, the press publishers right is clearly aiming at search engines, or rather, at one particular search engine with a capital G. Everybody not providing snippets in the course of general web search or similar services is - in theory - not affected at all. However, in the parliamentary process the wording was made even more twisted and unclear, so that it is basically "FUD by law". I don't know enough about WM's systems to assess whether it's possible that snippets from press publications could end up in any wiki search results. Best John 2016-04-21 15:25 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < [email protected]>: > Hi list, > > Another worry surrounding ancillary copyright issue has been voiced by > Wikimedia Deutschland a few years ago [1] before Germany introduced the > law. The focus was that Wikipedia articles regularly include links and > parts of newspaper articles or press releases. It seems to be quite unclear > to what extent they fall under the citation exception and where the new > ancillary copyright takes over. > > Dimi > > [1]https://wikimedia.de/wiki/Pressemitteilungen/PM_6_12_LSR > > 2016-04-20 3:00 GMT+02:00 Jacob Rogers <[email protected]>: > >> Hi James, >> >> A few answers to the questions. >> >> 1. As far as I'm aware, WMF has not gone after anyone for copyright >> infringement. I can't 100% rule out that it might have happened many years >> ago, but I don't think we ever have. >> >> 2. The content creator or creators have the best standing for a lawsuit >> because they're the copyright owners. As far as standing for WMF goes, it's >> a pretty complex question. I think there could be some theories of standing >> that might allow WMF to sue on behalf of one or more users to enforce a >> copyright, but I can't say for sure if any of them would hold up in court. >> >> 3. Not sure what circumstances have led to GPL or similar licenses coming >> up for litigation. It's equally possible that an individual content creator >> chose to sue or was sued in the context of the GPL, it just depends on the >> resources involved. >> >> 4. I don't see the connection between organizational standing and the >> value of a publisher's right. If there were some hypothetical really >> egregious case of Wikimedia project licenses being infringed and WMF wanted >> to sue, there's a possibility of funding a suit by a group of users even if >> we couldn't get associational standing. A separate publisher's right seems >> to me to potentially pit authors and publishers against each other and >> allow publishers to demand money even when the author is okay with >> dedicating their work or a use of it to the public. >> >> >> Counter issues >> >> 1. Licensed content is unlikely to be affected since it is published with >> the license, it would seem to me that the same license would apply to the >> published copy. Though it's possible if the law were poorly worded, it >> could create a right outside of the existing regime and that wouldn't be >> covered by existing CC licenses and would require an update as a result. >> >> I am much more worried about PD content, which could potentially become >> mired in confusion if specific publications of it were separately >> copyrighted even though the underlying content is free for the public. >> >> 2. My best guess at damages would be some calculation of lost profits. >> That is, the publisher would say "if i had the exclusive right to sell >> this, I would have made X dollars, but that didn't happen because the >> person I'm suing made all these copies without permission, so they should >> pay me X." >> >> 3. Text and data mining probably wouldn't be affected, or at least would >> be no more affected than they are under the existing copyright regime. >> >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 4:31 PM, James Heald <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I've been invited to represent Wikimedia at a round-table of interested >>> parties with the UK Government on Wednesday, to offer thoughts on the >>> current EU consultations on Freedom of Panorama, and on a proposed new EU >>> "neighbouring right" for publishers (similar to the EU broadcasters' right). >>> >>> Dimi has already put up some good thoughts on the FoP consultation >>> questions, >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/FoP_Consultation >>> >>> but it would be useful to pull together talking points on the proposed >>> Publishers' Right. >>> >>> As Dimi flagged up in his report recently, the publishers' pitch for >>> this can be found at >>> http://www.publishersright.eu/ >>> >>> while the questions in the EU consultation can be found at: >>> >>> >>> https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/Consultation_Copyright?surveylanguage=EN >>> & click on the button "The role of publishers in the copyright value >>> chain" >>> >>> There is a clear attempted grab buried in the consultation, under >>> question 4: >>> proposing that publishers should have the ability "to receive >>> compensation for uses made under an exception" >>> >>> which can be contrasted with the exceptions under 5(3) of the InfoSoc >>> directive which do *not* require compensation. >>> >>> >>> But apart from this, it would be useful to discuss WM's take on the >>> issues that the Publishers' Right is being canvassed for to supposedly >>> address, from the standpoint of WMF as a publisher, that reserves its >>> recourse to copyright to defend the terms on which our material is made >>> available. >>> >>> Questions: >>> >>> * Is this something (going after some entity for copyright infringement) >>> that we have in fact ever done ? >>> >>> (Either for text or images) >>> >>> * Would WMF have standing to initiate such a suit, or (if WMF only has a >>> nonexclusive license to the material on WP pages) would such a suit have to >>> be initiated by the content creator ? >>> >>> * When eg the GPL has been defended in Europe, is that typically only >>> possible because there has been a copyright transfer agreement required to >>> the project from contributors ? >>> >>> * Is there therefore at least some case for what the publishers are >>> asking for ? >>> >>> >>> Counter-issues: >>> >>> * Do such neighbouring rights threaten to upset copyleft ecosystems, by >>> locking up PD content and/or copyleft content as part of a publication >>> protected as a whole ? >>> >>> * What sort of damages would publishers be able to seek? What 'value' >>> would these be computed on, outwith the value of the copyrights? >>> >>> * Implications for text & data mining, summarisation, etc. "Right to >>> read is the right to mine". >>> >>> >>> More thoughts ? >>> >>> >>> -- James. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Publicpolicy mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jacob Rogers >> Legal Counsel >> Wikimedia Foundation >> >> NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged >> information in it. If you have received this message 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. For more on what this means, please see >> our legal disclaimer >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Publicpolicy mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > > -- Referent für Politik und Recht Legal and Policy Advisor Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0 http://wikimedia.de Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/ Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
