If we can find out when this is coming up for a vote, it would be possible to use Geonotice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Geonotice) to alert editors in California to call their legislators. It would be good to go ahead and start working on a Wiki page to direct interested people to.
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Jacob Rogers <[email protected]> wrote: > For what it's worth, typically laws are interpreted against being > retroactive. What that means is that unless a law specifically says that it > applies retroactively (and doing that can make a law run afoul of > constitutional rules sometimes) it usually doesn't. So this is really > worrisome, but mostly going forward rather than to existing documents. > > Also, for the legislature, I'm not following them closely, but the California > State Assembly Calendar <http://assembly.ca.gov/legislativedeadlines> has > a deadline listed in June for them to vote on bill introduced in that house > before the summer recess, then another deadline in August before the fall > recess. > > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Mike Linksvayer <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 05/15/2016 08:07 PM, John P. Sadowski wrote: >> > 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? >> >> I don't see anything retroactive in the text, but I also don't see >> anything that would strictly prohibit state agencies and local >> governments from treating previous publications as subject to copyright. >> >> I see that User:Gazebo has posted at >> >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Proposed_law_in_California_to_extend_copyright_to_CA_state_and_local_government_works >> to no discussion yet. >> >> > 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. >> >> I don't know when it can be expected to come up for a vote. I should >> know more about California lawmaking than I do, which is almost nothing. >> I've copied wikimedia-sf; maybe some local California government maven >> lurks there and could say. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> 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 >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
