That is quite troubling, given that the committee approvals were near-unanimous. Is it possible that the bill could be interpreted to apply retroactively, meaning we'd have to remove those 1048 items? Any idea when the bill comes up with a vote? Wikimedia DC could possibly draft and send a letter giving Wikimedia-specific examples, or we could work with the Foundation legal team to do so.
Thanks. John P. Sadowski > On May 15, 2016, at 9:47 PM, Mike Linksvayer <[email protected]> wrote: > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/ab-2880 "California's Legislature > Wants to Copyright All Government Works" > > More background at > https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160417/09213934197/california-assembly-looks-to-push-cities-to-copyright-trademark-everything-they-can.shtml > > According to http://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/ California is one > of the three most "open" regarding government works. Presumably it won't > be anymore if AB 2880 becomes law. > > California is one of only two U.S. states with a category under > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_domain_by_government > -- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PD_California (1048 items). > > I haven't investigated whether and how many of those items would be > subject to copyright had AB 2880 been California law at the times of > their publication. > > Skimming the bill's changes to present law at > https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2880 > it seems the one or two maybe dangerous additions are these: > >> A public entity may own, license, and, if it deems it appropriate, >> formally register intellectual property it creates or otherwise >> acquires. > > The assembly's analysis views this as a clarification, but it could open > the door to widespread use (or copyright apologists would say, abuse) of > copyright by local government, as the EFF says, "to chill speech, stifle > open government, and harm the public domain." > >> (A) A state agency shall not enter into a contract under this >> article that waives the state’s intellectual property rights unless >> the state agency, prior to execution of the contract, obtains the >> consent of the department to the waiver. >> >> (B) An attempted waiver of the state’s intellectual property rights >> by a state agency that violates subparagraph (A) shall be deemed >> void as against public policy. > > It is not clear to me whether this addition might serve as a barrier to > agencies deciding to publish material under open licenses. In the > meantime, I assume it will foster such barriers in practice. > > https://twitter.com/mitchstoltz/status/731282363674562560 says "[EFF]'ll > probably issue an action alert, but meantime, call your state assembly > member's office & ask them to oppose." > > If this is indeed a threat, I wonder if there's anything Wikimedians can > do to oppose it, in addition to those of us in California calling our > state assembly members? > > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
