Hi, I think it is worth repeating that fixing this issue can happen on a federal level via https://law.resource.org/pub/edicts.html. It should be within the scope of the mission of WMF and its affiliates to suggest and support such a legislative move.
Mathias On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:32 AM, John Sadowski <[email protected]> wrote: > The situation is a bit odd. IANAL, but my understanding is that the > California Public Records Act doesn't explicitly put state government works > in the public domain, but there was a court case in 2009 that interpreted > its language as omitting any provision that would allow the state to claim > copyright [1]. The people on Commons find this sufficient to consider these > works as public domain [2], but the state claims that the courts are > misinterpreting the law. That's why they're calling this a "clarification", > because they claim that the law never put anything in the public domain in > the first place [3]. From the experience of another editor I've interacted > with on Wikipedia, the state government is still requiring permissions to > use state works even now [4]. Given this, there seems to be uncertainty > about the older works would still be considered public domain, and thus > whether we could continue to use them should this bill pass. > > John P. Sadowski > > [1] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_of_Santa_Clara_v._California_First_Amendment_Coalition > [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-CAGov > [3] > http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab_2851-2900/ab_2880_cfa_20160416_133937_asm_comm.html > "Although it has always been the intent of the Legislature to ensure that > California agencies can own, hold, and acquire intellectual property, this > bill clarifies existing law by explicitly providing that a California public > entity may own, license, and if deemed appropriate, register intellectual > property." > [4] Last paragraph of > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antony-22&diff=710660699&oldid=709645905 > and last paragraph of > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antony-22&diff=711100671&oldid=710966305 > ...ignore the bit about the maps :-) > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Ryan Kaldari <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> 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 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. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
