FYI-- CC wrote a post about it - https://blog.creativecommons.org/2016/05/19/california-bill/ Also, EFF has an action page up now where California residents can send a message to state reps. https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=10331 tvol
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Mathias Schindler < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Invest in an open future. Support Creative Commons today: http://bit.ly/19IjSKl
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
