Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Ray Saintonge wrote: And how are you determining that a work is orphaned? What JuJU do you have to declare that a work is free to use commercially? Whether a work is orphaned will vary from one work to another. Do you have a specific work in mind? I was just providing a plausible circumstance where this might apply. That's why I asked how you are going to go about reliably ascertaining that a work is orphaned. Just because a work hasn't be republished over a period of time is no guarantee that not a reliable guide to it being orphaned. The creator may not want it to be republished during his or her lifetime. The creators estate may similarly not want it republished, or they may not even want it republished in digital form. I said nothing about commercial use. By adding the work to wikisources you are unilaterally adding a license declaring that it is free to use commercially. Which is regardless of the actually wishes of the actual copyright owner as you simply do not know what the copyright owner wants. I have no idea what you mean by JuJU. I mean what supernatural power are you in possession of that enables you to strip copyright from work and declare it free to use? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: Ray Saintonge wrote: And how are you determining that a work is orphaned? What JuJU do you have to declare that a work is free to use commercially? Whether a work is orphaned will vary from one work to another. Do you have a specific work in mind? I was just providing a plausible circumstance where this might apply. That's why I asked how you are going to go about reliably ascertaining that a work is orphaned. Just because a work hasn't be republished over a period of time is no guarantee that not a reliable guide to it being orphaned. The creator may not want it to be republished during his or her lifetime. The creators estate may similarly not want it republished, or they may not even want it republished in digital form. There is no single technique that will allow this to be determined ...That is why I asked you about what specific work you had in mind. The purpose of copyright is to protect the economic interests of the creator. Using copyright to completely prevent the republication of a work is an abuse of copyright. No one has suggested that time alone will render a work orphaned; you are confusing my premises with their consequences, and fighting ghosts. I said nothing about commercial use By adding the work to wikisources you are unilaterally adding a license declaring that it is free to use commercially. Which is regardless of the actually wishes of the actual copyright owner as you simply do not know what the copyright owner wants. There is no question adding a licence when the usage is one already permitted by law, as would be the case with the library and archives exemptions. It is only in the minds of the chronically doctrinaire that your proposed licence makes any sense. I have no idea what you mean by JuJU. I mean what supernatural power are you in possession of that enables you to strip copyright from work and declare it free to use? Just because you support the use of primitive fetishes or Yoruba dances to determine copyright status does not warrant your tendentious and libelous accusation that I have engaged in the same witchcraft. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Ray Saintonge wrote: wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: Ray Saintonge wrote: And how are you determining that a work is orphaned? What JuJU do you have to declare that a work is free to use commercially? Whether a work is orphaned will vary from one work to another. Do you have a specific work in mind? I was just providing a plausible circumstance where this might apply. That's why I asked how you are going to go about reliably ascertaining that a work is orphaned. Just because a work hasn't be republished over a period of time is no guarantee that not a reliable guide to it being orphaned. The creator may not want it to be republished during his or her lifetime. The creators estate may similarly not want it republished, or they may not even want it republished in digital form. There is no single technique that will allow this to be determined ...That is why I asked you about what specific work you had in mind. The purpose of copyright is to protect the economic interests of the creator. Using copyright to completely prevent the republication of a work is an abuse of copyright. The economic interests of the creator may well be NOT to republish. Or to only republish in limited editions, and as this is concerning French works the creators have a moral rights as to how and when they're works are used. No one has suggested that time alone will render a work orphaned; you are confusing my premises with their consequences, and fighting ghosts. One one? Really? [As an example consider an orphan work last published in the United States more than seventy years ago.] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-June/059013.html Because no one can ascertain whether a work is orphaned or not, the subsequent proposals to allow commercial reuse of works declared 'orphaned' will always get vehemently opposed by content creators. Now most of the opposition to Orphan Work legislation disappears once the prospect of commercial exploitation is removed. Once you start uploading stuff to wikisource you are adding a commercial license which is NOT yours to give. If I have uploaded a bunch of videos to youtube, just because I haven't logged into the account for some time, or even if I never log into it again it does not mean that I have abandoned any economic interest in me to get permission to use the videos, does not give you the legal right to declare it free to use commercially. I said nothing about commercial use By adding the work to wikisources you are unilaterally adding a license declaring that it is free to use commercially. Which is regardless of the actually wishes of the actual copyright owner as you simply do not know what the copyright owner wants. There is no question adding a licence when the usage is one already permitted by law, as would be the case with the library and archives exemptions. It is only in the minds of the chronically doctrinaire that your proposed licence makes any sense. If the usage is permitted by law then the work is not Orphaned it is either in the public domain or the use is covered by fair-use, you don't have to invoke the concept of Orphaned. I have no idea what you mean by JuJU. I mean what supernatural power are you in possession of that enables you to strip copyright from work and declare it free to use? Just because you support the use of primitive fetishes or Yoruba dances to determine copyright status does not warrant your tendentious and libelous accusation that I have engaged in the same witchcraft. Tough. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
I've added a new section on DMCA compliance to both the en.wiki and meta Office actions pages: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions Please feel free to augment with additional info. Ryan Kaldari ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On 7 June 2010 19:21, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: I've added a new section on DMCA compliance to both the en.wiki and meta Office actions pages: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions Please feel free to augment with additional info. Ryan Kaldari The claim The Foundation is required by law to comply with such notices even if they are spurious isn't correct. I assume you meant to say The Foundation is required by law to comply with such notices even if they are spurious if it doesn't want to lose it's safe harbour and even there I'm not sure the loss of safe harbour status would be universal. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Hello, Could someone please explain the following from this page: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf 1. What does it mean that I consent to accept service of process from the party who submitted the take-down notice? 2. In the phrase Each of those works were removed in error and I believe my posting them does not infringe anyone else's rights. Does it mean does not infringe anyone else's rights _in USA_? or everywhere in the world? Thanks, Yann ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 6:33 AM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, Could someone please explain the following from this page: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf 1. What does it mean that I consent to accept service of process from the party who submitted the take-down notice? 2. In the phrase Each of those works were removed in error and I believe my posting them does not infringe anyone else's rights. Does it mean does not infringe anyone else's rights _in USA_? or everywhere in the world? Thanks, Yann Process service is when you are given notification of a suit or legal action. If you've ever heard the phrase you've been served - that's what this refers to. In some situations, you have to be notified of the existence of a legal action in order for it to proceed against you. As for the second part, I'd imagine it means anyone else's rights as written - not specific to those that originate in the U.S. ~Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Here's my attempt at trying to answer these. Yann Forget wrote: Hello, Could someone please explain the following from this page: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf 1. What does it mean that I consent to accept service of process from the party who submitted the take-down notice? Since a counterclaim involves the possibility that the rights claimant may go to court, this simply means that you agree to receive any legal paperwork in connection with such a case. The claimant could then send it directly to you without going through WMF. 2. In the phrase Each of those works were removed in error and I believe my posting them does not infringe anyone else's rights. Does it mean does not infringe anyone else's rights _in USA_? or everywhere in the world? This would be as determined by US law since you are giving jurisdiction to US courts. The claimant can make that claim from anywhere in the world. Foreign rights could be protected to whatever extent they are recognized by US law. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Ryan Kaldari wrote: If you want to challenge a takedown notice, the proper (and only) course of action is to file a counter-notice. I had work that I did on Commons taken down by a bogus DMCA takedown notice several years ago. Instead of complaining to the Foundation, which would have been pointless (as they are bound by the DMCA to comply with even the most bogus takedown notices), I mailed them a counter-notice and the work was restored in short order. Mostly yes, but sometimes no. The Foundation should still exercise due diligence before deleting. It should still review the notice to make sure that the notice includes *all* the required elements. Refusing to take down the most bogus claims could endanger its safe harbor status, but it should avoid copyright paranoia. There are several handy online guides for how to file DMCA counter-notices. It is very easy and doesn't require hiring a lawyer. The only catch is that by filing the counter-notice you are putting your money where your mouth is and legally asserting that you have the right to post the work (so make sure that this is correct or you may end up in a lawsuit). Absolutely. If more people were to accept responsibility for these materials it would spread the risk most wonderfully. One of our disadvantages is that we have a lot of people totally lacking in daily experience with the law, or whose understanding is based on watching too many cops-and-robbers TV shows. People with some legal experience know that they can push the envelope to some degree; those without that experience are easily intimidated by that. Ideally, the Foundation is an ISP with no knowledge of the material its site contains until it is brought to its attention. It's perfectly legitimate for it to do absolutely nothing until it receives a takedown notice. To some that may even seem to be an obtuse position. When it receives a takedown notice it must act, and if it chooses not to act that must be an informed decision, not a default. In practical terms it can't help but be shown the most egregious copyright violation. Taking those down is done more as an act of good faith than out of any legal obligation. Putting your money where your mouth is means to stop treating the Foundation as a nanny. We do far more for the sake of free culture by being willing to challenge bogus or borderline copyright claims than adopting tortured and self-defeating interpretations of copyright law. Failing to stand up to bogus claims encourages them. As individuals we need to have the courage not to pass the buck to the Foundation. The current situation is completely different than the NPG situation, which involved only bogus threats, not a legally binding takedown notice. I agree. Dragging in the NPG situation only confuses the present one. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
David Gerard wrote: Yep! You want to write a first draft of a guide? I'm sure the EFF or someone like that will have something suitable to start with. We can't have a lawyer employed by the WMF look over it, but we have lots of lawyers amongst the volunteers. An important point; we musn't force the WMF lawyer into a conflict of interest The current situation is completely different than the NPG situation, which involved only bogus threats, not a legally binding takedown notice. Indeed. If they had issued a takedown notice, someone could have responded with it's not bogus. I am this person at this address. Make my day. It really feels good to be able to say Make my day. More of us should try it. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: David Gerard wrote: Yep! You want to write a first draft of a guide? I'm sure the EFF or someone like that will have something suitable to start with. We can't have a lawyer employed by the WMF look over it, but we have lots of lawyers amongst the volunteers. An important point; we musn't force the WMF lawyer into a conflict of interest In cases like this, I think it would help if the WMF lawyers would tell the community, bluntly, that they can't assist the community in the matter, with a quick overview of why they cant assist. Is that possible without putting WMF lawyers in a tight spot? -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 11:37, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: The only catch is that by filing the counter-notice you are putting your money where your mouth is and legally asserting that you have the right to post the work (so make sure that this is correct or you may end up in a lawsuit). Absolutely. If more people were to accept responsibility for these materials it would spread the risk most wonderfully. The main problem is that people edit WP on their free time as a hobby, and they do not possess large sum of money of their family budget to offer to nondeterministic amount of risk. People are not familiar with the legal process and risk, as you people said, which means they cannot measure the risk either. They most often doesn't even plan to privately pay a lawyer to tell them about it, since it's not a wee amount. So either we wait until people want to spend their private money to lawyers to define the risk and only accept mostly low risk counternotices, or to enroll to be crash test dummies. Both highly unlikely. Or we can reasonably expect them to ask for real legal advice from (or paid by) the WMF and _then_ accept the _known_ risk to file a counter-notice. I do not say we have to do that, only that I believe people won't do it any other way. Peter ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote: .. So either we wait until people want to spend their private money to lawyers to define the risk and only accept mostly low risk counternotices, or to enroll to be crash test dummies. Both highly unlikely. Or we can reasonably expect them to ask for real legal advice from (or paid by) the WMF and _then_ accept the _known_ risk to file a counter-notice. Another option is for a chapter to engage the lawyer.. or .. as David suggested.. On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:59 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: .. Yep! You want to write a first draft of a guide? I'm sure the EFF or someone like that will have something suitable to start with. .. find generic legal advice ... or ... We can't have a lawyer employed by the WMF look over it, but we have lots of lawyers amongst the volunteers. .. find a lawyer among the community who can help. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Ray Saintonge writes: An important point; we musn't force the WMF lawyer into a conflict of interest The issue is only partly conflict of interest, and it often isn't that. It's primarily that WMF is not insured to give legal advice to community members. We run an encyclopedia, not a free legal clinic. (By comparison, when I worked for EFF, I was actually empowered to give free legal advice to people who called in for help.) It really feels good to be able to say Make my day. More of us should try it. You'll be pleased, I know, to know that I do get to say something similar quite frequently. There are plenty of bogus legal threats directed to WMF. John Vandenberg writes: In cases like this, I think it would help if the WMF lawyers would tell the community, bluntly, that they can't assist the community in the matter, with a quick overview of why they cant assist. See above. It's also no secret that we have referred community members to lawyers in the past because we could not represent or counsel those members. This is what we did with regard to NPG. Is that possible without putting WMF lawyers in a tight spot? Sometimes. Sometimes not. (The issue is not so much putting lawyers in a tight spot as it is one of making WMF more vulnerable, e.g., by revealing defense strategies.) Peter Gervai writes: Or we can reasonably expect them to ask for real legal advice from (or paid by) the WMF and _then_ accept the _known_ risk to file a counter-notice. What happens if they follow the legal advice from WMF and then face liability anyway? (This sometimes happens even when the best advice is given.) WMF is not insured against the malpractice lawsuit that community members might bring in that case. John Vandenberg writes: .. find generic legal advice ... or ... .. find a lawyer among the community who can help. There is plenty of generic legal advice about how to respond to takedown notices. A little Googling will turn up some for you. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 15:54, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: We run an encyclopedia, not a free legal clinic. (By comparison, when I worked for EFF, I was actually empowered to give free legal advice to people who called in for help.) Couldn't we then use EFF for this specific occasion? Aren't they willing? Peter Gervai writes: Or we can reasonably expect them to ask for real legal advice from (or paid by) the WMF and _then_ accept the _known_ risk to file a counter-notice. What happens if they follow the legal advice from WMF and then face liability anyway? (This sometimes happens even when the best advice is given.) I'm sure that the advice would've been detailed this possible outcome as well, weighting its probability. The problem is that average editor have close to zero knowledge about the chances; either it's 80% that you'll get sued successfully, 50% that it's gonna happen or 5% (or maybe 0%). WMF is not insured against the malpractice lawsuit that community members might bring in that case. I'm sure you have at least a dozen way to phrase your possible disclaimer. :-))) But I was mainly referred to the request to people to back up their claim with counternotices, and why this wasn't realistic. If nobody can give advice then I don't expect people to take undefined risks. And I do not expect WMF to be able to give that advice, acknowledged. We're clearly not equipped for that. Peter ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Is that possible without putting WMF lawyers in a tight spot? Sometimes. Sometimes not. (The issue is not so much putting lawyers in a tight spot as it is one of making WMF more vulnerable, e.g., by revealing defense strategies.) Surely having a known defense strategy would beat having no defense strategy at all, which basically is the situation now. I can accept that the WMF cannot refuse take-down notices itself, because that would increase its liability not only to the current claim, but to future claims as well. But why not support the community in issuing counter-claims, by telling them that the possibility is there, and what the consequences are (both the positive one that the WMF is then likely to re-instate the material, and the negative one that the one doing the claim will be the one liable to get sued if the other party decides to do so). The situation now is that a single take down notice will have the WMF take down the material, basically saying to the community we have to do this. How do you expect people to issue counter-claims if they don't even know about the possibility of doing so? Or we can reasonably expect them to ask for real legal advice from (or paid by) the WMF and _then_ accept the _known_ risk to file a counter-notice. What happens if they follow the legal advice from WMF and then face liability anyway? (This sometimes happens even when the best advice is given.) WMF is not insured against the malpractice lawsuit that community members might bring in that case. I'm sorry, but I am getting more and more the feeling that for the board and the executive the foundation is more important than the projects. To me, this answer is an example to that. Surely, it is easy enough to put an answer in such wordings that the likelihood of losing such a suit (in the already unlikely circumstance that such a suit would actually be brought forward) are negligible. And because of the remaining minute chance that there is a minute chance that the foundation loses a non-negligible sum of money, you leave the community on its own. It's sad. The foundation exists to support the projects, not the projects to give the foundation a reason to exist. John Vandenberg writes: .. find generic legal advice ... or ... .. find a lawyer among the community who can help. There is plenty of generic legal advice about how to respond to takedown notices. A little Googling will turn up some for you. So that's the foundation's reaction? If you don't like us taking down material, just find out yourself what can be done about that - and then find out how that something is done that can be done about that? You seem to be more tightly bedded with not only valid but also invalid copyright claimers than I ever had thought possible. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: Surely having a known defense strategy would beat having no defense strategy at all, which basically is the situation now. I'm afraid I must deny that we have no defense strategy. But why not support the community in issuing counter-claims, by telling them that the possibility is there, and what the consequences are (both the positive one that the WMF is then likely to re-instate the material, and the negative one that the one doing the claim will be the one liable to get sued if the other party decides to do so). If I were you, I would not assume that this is something WMF would never do. As has been made clear before now, we consulted with French lawyers before complying with the takedown notice in this instance, to assess how seriously to take the copyright claims. The situation now is that a single take down notice will have the WMF take down the material, basically saying to the community we have to do this. I disagree with this characterization of the situation. How do you expect people to issue counter-claims if they don't even know about the possibility of doing so? Are you saying that the possibility of responding to a DMCA (or equivalent) takedown notice has been a secret until now? My experience has been the converse -- that any copyright advocate who knows enough to track copyright dates and to post dozens or hundreds of texts to Wikisource is likely to know the basics of takedown notices and counter-claims, or is able quickly to determine on his own what can be done in response. I'm sorry, but I am getting more and more the feeling that for the board and the executive the foundation is more important than the projects. This seems disingenuous to me. You seem to be saying that all collaborative projects must provide you with legal representation and advice. I'm pretty sure the Free Software Foundation does not do this, and that Creative Commons doesn't do it either. There are organizations that do provide such services, like EFF (my former employer). It seems to me to be a mistake to try to turn the Wikimedia Foundation into another EFF, or to say that the Foundation is more important than the projects because it does not try to be EFF. To me, this answer is an example to that. Surely, it is easy enough to put an answer in such wordings that the likelihood of losing such a suit (in the already unlikely circumstance that such a suit would actually be brought forward) are negligible. The issue is not the losing of such a suit. We'd likely win it. The issue is the cost of winning it. There is plenty of generic legal advice about how to respond to takedown notices. A little Googling will turn up some for you. So that's the foundation's reaction? I'm avoiding giving you legal advice while dropping broad hints about where you can find good legal advice for free. Of course, I can't compel you to take the hint. If you don't like us taking down material, just find out yourself what can be done about that - and then find out how that something is done that can be done about that? Other Wikimedians don't seem to find this as tricky as you do. You seem to be more tightly bedded with not only valid but also invalid copyright claimers than I ever had thought possible. This seems to be an inference that is insupportable on the basis of the facts you have. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Peter Gervai wrote: On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 15:54, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: We run an encyclopedia, not a free legal clinic. (By comparison, when I worked for EFF, I was actually empowered to give free legal advice to people who called in for help.) Couldn't we then use EFF for this specific occasion? Aren't they willing? Can I suggest this is more likely much more the cup of tea for the Chilling Effects site folks? Google, or wikipedia for them, if you aren't familiar with them yet. I very much think their site will at the very least have plenty of links you can follow, to find what you wish for. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On 6/4/10 3:41 AM, Peter Gervai wrote: Or we can reasonably expect them to ask for real legal advice from (or paid by) the WMF and_then_ accept the_known_ risk to file a counter-notice. The Wikimedia Foundation cannot simultaneously act as an impartial (and therefore non-liable) host and as legal council for one of the parties. John's suggestion is good advice - seek legal council from among the community. In the meantime, I'll try to put together a quick guide for filing counter-notices with the Foundation when I get some free time. Ryan Kaldari ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Peter Gervai wrote: On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 11:37, Ray Saintonge wrote: The only catch is that by filing the counter-notice you are putting your money where your mouth is and legally asserting that you have the right to post the work (so make sure that this is correct or you may end up in a lawsuit). Absolutely. If more people were to accept responsibility for these materials it would spread the risk most wonderfully. The main problem is that people edit WP on their free time as a hobby, and they do not possess large sum of money of their family budget to offer to nondeterministic amount of risk. People are not familiar with the legal process and risk, as you people said, which means they cannot measure the risk either. They most often doesn't even plan to privately pay a lawyer to tell them about it, since it's not a wee amount. The procedure for putting up a counter-notice is very simple, and costs nothing ... unless you send it by snail-mail and have the cost of a stamp. There have already been excellent suggestions to describe the process in an article on Meta. A person who is seriously considering a counter-notice will probably have given some consideration to his chances of success, more so than with an original posting of the material to the site. Personally, it would not bother me to post questionable material just to flush out the rights owner of a possibly orphan work. If the owner issues a takedown order you know he exists, and publishing the order insures that that information becomes public whether or not you take the matter any further. The level of risk will vary with each individual work being considered. Compared to speaking on your cell phone while driving there isn't much risk at all, and even the highest degree of risk is not likely to be fatal. The permutations of what can happen are endless. If you are in country A issuing a counter-notice regarding a rights claimant in country B granting jurisdiction to a United States court over a site in the US when neither of you are there what's the likelihood that it will ever really get to court? It's going to cost the rights claimant too to go to court. How much is he going to want to invest in time, money and travel to prosecute his case when winning is highly uncertain? He has to pay his money before you do just to get a case filed. I believe that it's much easier to be a defendant than a plaintiff in such cases. If it gets this far, then what? You could play to win, and maybe get your costs covered if the judge deems the case bogus. You might even get pro bono legal help, or be able to get people to help your defence because they believe in your cause. (If you get more than it cost you, the ethical thing might be to give the excess to the cause. :-) ) Another possibility is that you might concede the case and the plaintiff would get a default judgement. That could result in an order of the court to take down the material, which only puts us back to where we were before you filed the counter-claim. The court could award damages but there are limitations here too. Then, what do they do to collect that money when you aren't even in the United States? In other words most of the difficulties that can be encountered tend to favour the defendant. You can't depend on the lawyer to evaluate your risk. If he evaluates wrongly you are still the one to pay. Unless you do something abominably stupid the risks will be low, and there are plenty of Wikimedians available that will always be more than willing to tell you when you are being stupid. If you still don't believe that the risk is low, you might as well keep talking on the phone while driving. So either we wait until people want to spend their private money to lawyers to define the risk and only accept mostly low risk counternotices, or to enroll to be crash test dummies. Both highly unlikely. That you will accept to file low-risk counternotices shows a glimmer of hope. Or we can reasonably expect them to ask for real legal advice from (or paid by) the WMF and _then_ accept the _known_ risk to file a counter-notice. My willingness to accept the WMF as my nanny is on a par with my willingness to accept Jesus as my Lord and Saviour. I do not say we have to do that, only that I believe people won't do it any other way. Yes, that fairly represents a very sad state of affairs. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On 3 June 2010 16:14, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: If you can link in your notifications to a handy guide to contesting a DMCA takedown notice, that would probably answer the concerns in this thread. It's clear that people weren't sure if they could re-add things at all, ever, after a takedown notice, without express WMF permission. It's clear to you, but not to the non-lawyers who nevertheless know what a bogus claim copyright is. (And I know the WMF isn't their lawyer, but I'm sure high-quality guides to contesting takedown notices exist.) I understand it's possible WMF could be liable even for *alluding* to how to deal with these things in the notice. Because the DMCA is that messed up. So: the community needs to: 1. Put a suitable guide to dealing with DMCA takedown notices on meta. (Festoon with disclaimers.) 2. Link it from each occasion the community is notified of a takedown notice having been received. This will expressly not carry the Foundation's imprimatur in any way, but it will help the present problem. Does that sound like it would deal with the problems? Yann? - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
2010/6/3 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: On 3 June 2010 16:14, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: If you can link in your notifications to a handy guide to contesting a DMCA takedown notice, that would probably answer the concerns in this thread. It's clear that people weren't sure if they could re-add things at all, ever, after a takedown notice, without express WMF permission. It's clear to you, but not to the non-lawyers who nevertheless know what a bogus claim copyright is. (And I know the WMF isn't their lawyer, but I'm sure high-quality guides to contesting takedown notices exist.) I understand it's possible WMF could be liable even for *alluding* to how to deal with these things in the notice. Because the DMCA is that messed up. So: the community needs to: 1. Put a suitable guide to dealing with DMCA takedown notices on meta. (Festoon with disclaimers.) 2. Link it from each occasion the community is notified of a takedown notice having been received. This will expressly not carry the Foundation's imprimatur in any way but it will help the present problem. Does that sound like it would deal with the problems? Yann? Yes, a detailed guide on how to deal with a take-down notice would greatly help. If possible, it should include the issues raised by Ray: under which jurisdiction, who can send a counter-notice, etc. Ray also wrote that the take-down notice needs to be public, which it was not in this case. - d. Regards, Yann ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
If you want to challenge a takedown notice, the proper (and only) course of action is to file a counter-notice. I had work that I did on Commons taken down by a bogus DMCA takedown notice several years ago. Instead of complaining to the Foundation, which would have been pointless (as they are bound by the DMCA to comply with even the most bogus takedown notices), I mailed them a counter-notice and the work was restored in short order. There are several handy online guides for how to file DMCA counter-notices. It is very easy and doesn't require hiring a lawyer. The only catch is that by filing the counter-notice you are putting your money where your mouth is and legally asserting that you have the right to post the work (so make sure that this is correct or you may end up in a lawsuit). The current situation is completely different than the NPG situation, which involved only bogus threats, not a legally binding takedown notice. Ryan Kaldari ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On 3 June 2010 21:42, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: There are several handy online guides for how to file DMCA counter-notices. It is very easy and doesn't require hiring a lawyer. The only catch is that by filing the counter-notice you are putting your money where your mouth is and legally asserting that you have the right to post the work (so make sure that this is correct or you may end up in a lawsuit). Yep! You want to write a first draft of a guide? I'm sure the EFF or someone like that will have something suitable to start with. We can't have a lawyer employed by the WMF look over it, but we have lots of lawyers amongst the volunteers. The current situation is completely different than the NPG situation, which involved only bogus threats, not a legally binding takedown notice. Indeed. If they had issued a takedown notice, someone could have responded with it's not bogus. I am this person at this address. Make my day. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Hoi, The notion that French is spoken only in France is factually wrong. Consequently the claim that French literature targets the French public is arguably wrong as well. Either French is a world language or it is only spoken by the French public, you cannot have it both ways. Not only in my opinion is French a world language. Thanks, GerardM On 2 June 2010 14:43, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, In the beginning of March 2010, a few hundreds files have been deleted on the French Wikisource following a request from Gallimard, a leading French publisher. [1] The Wikimedia Foundation received a request from Editions Gallimard to takedown content from the French Wikisource. This request is based on Editions Gallimard's claim that Wikisource content in the French language targets the French public, and therefore, under French conflict of laws principles, the copyright law of France applies to this content. They were deleted, according to Mike Godwin, following the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act [2]. These texts are from a dozen authors, and some are even in the public domain in France. In addition, I receive a personal letter, as the main editor of these texts, according to Gallimard. We didn't receive any information from the Wikimedia Foundation, and I know the details only because I have been personally involved. I understand that there is a 15 business days delay after which the material must be put back up (cf. Wikipedia) if Gallimard does not file a lawsuit. Now three months later, we didn't receive any information from the Foundation about this, and the texts are still deleted. Many contributors are obviously not very happy, and feel that the Foundation submitted to the pressure of a commercial publisher. Comparing with the National Portrait Gallery affair on Commons, it looks like a double standard was applied. Just a few days before these texts were deleted, I asked Cary what was the official opinion of Wikimedia Foundation about texts which are in the public domain in USA, but not in France. I was told that the community is entitled to decide by itself. Comments? Regards, Yann [1] http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Demande_des_%C3%A9ditions_Gallimard_du_15_f%C3%A9vrier_2010 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Hello, 2010/6/2 Eugene Zelenko eugene.zele...@gmail.com: Hi! On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, Just a few days before these texts were deleted, I asked Cary what was the official opinion of Wikimedia Foundation about texts which are in the public domain in USA, but not in France. I was told that the community is entitled to decide by itself. Comments? Regards, Yann I think it's reasonable to account country of origin copyrights laws too as Commons does, especially with Wikisource editions other then English, where majority of text most likely originated outside of USA. And majority of audience also likely to be outside of USA. Some even tend to interpret USA public domain that everything published before 1923 (regardless of fact of publication in USA or not) is public domain in USA. I would not oppose a decision that the country of origin copyrights laws has to be followed, but the issue is, who is going to take this decision? Many Wikisource, including the English Wikisource, include any text published before 1923 regardless of the country of origin. So if an English text copyrighted in UK can be published in Wikisource, why not a French text copyrighted in France? Why should we apply different rules for English and for French languages? (and any other languages for that matter). I think that such a decision has to be taken globally, i.e. by the Wikimedia Foundation. That is what I already requested a long time ago. Then there is a problem of information. We really need better communication between Wikimedia Foundation and the communities. Eugene. Regards, Yann ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Yann Forget writes: In addition, I receive a personal letter, as the main editor of these texts, according to Gallimard. We didn't receive any information from the Wikimedia Foundation, and I know the details only because I have been personally involved. Yann seems to be suggesting here that the Wikimedia Foundation did not notify him about the Gallimard takedown, but at the same time Yann acknowledges that he knew about the Gallimard takedown. It is precisely because we knew Yann knew about Gallimard's takedown demand (it wasn't a request) that we did not send him additional correspondence to inform him about something he already knew about. I still have in my email storage correspondence with Yann regarding this event from March of this year -- it seems odd to have Yann complaining that he didn't know enough about it. Furthermore, when we noted in the takedown who was demanding the takedown (Editions Gallimard) *and we further listed their contact information* so that francophone Wikimedians who disagreed with the takedown demand could make their feelings known to Gallimard. We did this at the very beginning of the takedown process, which we are obligated by international law to obey. Now three months later, we didn't receive any information from the Foundation about this, and the texts are still deleted. Yann seems here to say that some unnamed group did not know about the takedown. We posted the takedown information publicly. Yann in fact knew about it from the beginning. What's more, we listened to Yann's feedback, including claims that some of the material Gallimard demanded taken down was material they had no right to make such demands about. We narrowed Gallimard's takedown demand accordingly. Yann knows this. Many contributors are obviously not very happy, and feel that the Foundation submitted to the pressure of a commercial publisher. Comparing with the National Portrait Gallery affair on Commons, it looks like a double standard was applied. I strongly suspect that any contributors who feel as Yann says they feel are relying on mistaken information and assumptions. We absolutely did resist the demands of Gallimard within the full extent that French law allows. We retained French counsel who represented us in discussions with Gallimard, and we forced Gallimard to make their demands both more specific and narrower. The pressure of a commercial publisher played no role. (A noncommercial entity making the same legal demand would be entitled to the same takedown, assuming that the formalities were met.) Comparing the National Portrait Gallery affair suggests lack of knowledge about the underlying copyright issues involved. The NPG dispute involved art works that unquestionably were no longer protected by copyright according to the law of most signatories of international copyright treaties. The NPG actually knows this, and did not press any legal challenge, likely because of uncertainty whether their anomalous theory of copyright protection for digitized centuries-old artworks would be upheld even by British courts. The Gallimard case is fundamentally different, since most of the works they demanded taken down were asserted to be modern works that are clearly within the period of French copyright protection. Just a few days before these texts were deleted, I asked Cary what was the official opinion of Wikimedia Foundation about texts which are in the public domain in USA, but not in France. I was told that the community is entitled to decide by itself. Cary is correct that the Wikimedia Foundation is not purporting to give you legal advice about copyright and the public domain. We're not your lawyers. For that, you are best served by consulting French legal counsel. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
2010/6/2 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com: Yann Forget writes: In addition, I receive a personal letter, as the main editor of these texts, according to Gallimard. We didn't receive any information from the Wikimedia Foundation, and I know the details only because I have been personally involved. Yann seems to be suggesting here that the Wikimedia Foundation did not notify him about the Gallimard takedown, but at the same time Yann acknowledges that he knew about the Gallimard takedown. It is precisely because we knew Yann knew about Gallimard's takedown demand (it wasn't a request) that we did not send him additional correspondence to inform him about something he already knew about. I still have in my email storage correspondence with Yann regarding this event from March of this year -- it seems odd to have Yann complaining that he didn't know enough about it. Furthermore, when we noted in the takedown who was demanding the takedown (Editions Gallimard) *and we further listed their contact information* so that francophone Wikimedians who disagreed with the takedown demand could make their feelings known to Gallimard. We did this at the very beginning of the takedown process, which we are obligated by international law to obey. Now three months later, we didn't receive any information from the Foundation about this, and the texts are still deleted. Yann seems here to say that some unnamed group did not know about the takedown. We posted the takedown information publicly. Yann in fact knew about it from the beginning. What's more, we listened to Yann's feedback, including claims that some of the material Gallimard demanded taken down was material they had no right to make such demands about. We narrowed Gallimard's takedown demand accordingly. Yann knows this. I didn't know you narrowed Gallimard's takedown demand. AFAIK you never informed me nor Wikisource about this. Yet there are works which are in public domain in France and which are still deleted in Wikisource following Gallimard's demand. In fact, you didn't inform Wikisource about the details of Gallimard's demand. I received Gallimard's letter only one month _after_ the works were deleted on Wikisource. I answered to Gallimard and I didn't receive any news from them. I don't expect to receive anything from Gallimard since their FUD tactic worked very well, and the works are not on-line any more on Wikisource. And I am not so foolish to ask Gallimard for objective information. In fact Gallimard has made at least two mistakes in their request: one of the author's date of death is false, and in one case, they miscalculated the duration of copyright, forgetting the 30 years extension for authors who died in action. Many contributors are obviously not very happy, and feel that the Foundation submitted to the pressure of a commercial publisher. Comparing with the National Portrait Gallery affair on Commons, it looks like a double standard was applied. I strongly suspect that any contributors who feel as Yann says they feel are relying on mistaken information and assumptions. We absolutely did resist the demands of Gallimard within the full extent that French law allows. We retained French counsel who represented us in discussions with Gallimard, and we forced Gallimard to make their demands both more specific and narrower. The pressure of a commercial publisher played no role. (A noncommercial entity making the same legal demand would be entitled to the same takedown, assuming that the formalities were met.) Happy to hear that. It would have been much better if you would have informed the Wikisource community about it. Comparing the National Portrait Gallery affair suggests lack of knowledge about the underlying copyright issues involved. The NPG dispute involved art works that unquestionably were no longer protected by copyright according to the law of most signatories of international copyright treaties. The NPG actually knows this, and did not press any legal challenge, likely because of uncertainty whether their anomalous theory of copyright protection for digitized centuries-old artworks would be upheld even by British courts. The Gallimard case is fundamentally different, since most of the works they demanded taken down were asserted to be modern works that are clearly within the period of French copyright protection. Partly false, misleading at the minimum. Some of the deleted works are in the public domain in France. At least half of them are in the public domain world wide, except in France. These are published on many web sites, including the National French Library. Just a few days before these texts were deleted, I asked Cary what was the official opinion of Wikimedia Foundation about texts which are in the public domain in USA, but not in France. I was told that the community is entitled to decide by itself. Cary is correct that the Wikimedia Foundation is not purporting to
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Hoi, When I read: Wikisource content in the French language targets the French public, and therefore, under French conflict of laws principles, the copyright law of France applies to this content. I do read the French public. Wikisource does not target the French public per se. Thanks, Gerard On 2 June 2010 17:05, Tim Landscheidt t...@tim-landscheidt.de wrote: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: The notion that French is spoken only in France is factually wrong. Consequently the claim that French literature targets the French public is arguably wrong as well. Either French is a world language or it is only spoken by the French public, you cannot have it both ways. Not only in my opinion is French a world language. [...] Yann's (English) quote of Gallimard's claim doesn't say any- where that French literature targets the French public /ex- clusively/. Tim ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote I didn't know you narrowed Gallimard's takedown demand. AFAIK you never informed me nor Wikisource about this. We cannot inform you about all the details communicated in an ongoing negotiation with parties threatening us with litigation. Apart from whether doing so would be consistent with legal ethics, it would also provide a disincentive for complaining parties to negotiate with us at all. In fact, you didn't inform Wikisource about the details of Gallimard's demand. I received Gallimard's letter only one month _after_ the works were deleted on Wikisource. In fact, the note for every takedown specified that the takedown occurred because of a Gallimard demand, and it listed Gallimard's contact information. This was done at the time of the takedown, not one month later. Happy to hear that. It would have been much better if you would have informed the Wikisource community about it. It would be a delightful world if all legal negotiations could be shared with everyone instantly. We do not live in that world, however. What we did do, at my direction, was make clear at the time of the takedown who was responsible for the takedown demand and how to contact the entity responsible. At some point, it seems fair to expect concerned individuals -- especially those who already know about the complaint -- to be aware of public notices about what was taken down and why. You seem to be complaining here because you knew about the Gallimard takedown demands, but didn't bother to track the followup to those demands on Wikisource. This is a shame, because we did try to make it easy for you to know what had happened. Partly false, misleading at the minimum. Not false at all. Some of the deleted works are in the public domain in France. You're still missing the point. NPG did not send a formal takedown notice. At least half of them are in the public domain world wide, except in France. These are published on many web sites, including the National French Library. Please understand that if you have problems with French copyright law, there's nothing I can do about that from here in California. Well, I am now in India, so I am not sure how much French law in relevant. Whether Gallimard would prevail in an infringement lawsuit based on these works is irrelevant to the question of how to respond to a takedown notice. What I ask is that you inform _the Wikisource project hosted by Wikimedia Foundation_ about _WMF official legal policy_, whatever is that policy. Official legal policy is to comply with properly crafted takedown notices. This has been our policy since long before I arrived at WMF. I'm surprised that you didn't know this before now. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
It's a shame that exchanges like this end up as back-and-forth arguments, instead of normal discussions. I think the Foundation should be as open as possible with project communities about legal action, even if in some cases that poses an obstacle to negotiation. The spectre of legal jeopardy can put a serious damper on participation, and when the Foundation takes action pursuant to legal claims more is needed than a deletion note saying who made the demand. Yann suggests that he (and the Wikisource community) did not know about the takedown in a timely manner; anyone not watching the files or the deletion logs might have missed it if the only note was in the deletion log. The project was not aware that the Foundation resisted the scope of the demand, or that the steps ultimately taken were the result of negotiation. Mike says Yann was aware of all of this, Yann says he didn't receive notice about the takedown until a month after it occurred, but either way... The lesson seems to be that there is room for improvement in communication, at the very least. When files are deleted by staff, why not leave a message on the village pump page or ask someone on the OTRS team for that language to do so? If you can't communicate certain facts during negotiations, why not do so afterwards? I don't imagine the WMF has non-disclosure agreements about this sort of thing, at least I hope not. There is some tension built into this general issue, though; Cary advises that the fr.wikisource project needs to make its own decisions about what content to allow, based on a local interpretation of applicable law -- and then the Foundation deletes content without (a) providing advice on what is acceptable and what isn't and (b) without referring to the local decisions the project was advised to take. I'm not sure how this can be resolved, but surely its a legitimate source for grumbling and not grounds for a personally accusatory response from the WMF. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Hoi, Thanks for a nice and adequate response. GerardM On 3 June 2010 00:04, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Gerard writes: Hoi, When I read: Wikisource content in the French language targets the French public, and therefore, under French conflict of laws principles, the copyright law of France applies to this content. I do read the French public. Wikisource does not target the French public per se. I agree with you about this. Unfortunately, that turns out to be an inadequate argument when it comes to justifying noncompliance with a takedown notice. We consulted with French counsel on the question of compliance, and neither they nor we believed there was a strong probability that French court would invalidate the takedown notice on the grounds that Wikisource does not target the French public in particular. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Gerard writes: Hoi, When I read: Wikisource content in the French language targets the French public, and therefore, under French conflict of laws principles, the copyright law of France applies to this content. I do read the French public. Wikisource does not target the French public per se. I agree with you about this. Unfortunately, that turns out to be an inadequate argument when it comes to justifying noncompliance with a takedown notice. We consulted with French counsel on the question of compliance, and neither they nor we believed there was a strong probability that French court would invalidate the takedown notice on the grounds that Wikisource does not target the French public in particular. The appropriate response to this might be a Quebec Wikisource project (or, pick another French-speaking location, with a very non-French copyright policy which is more friendly to us in this circumstance). -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, George Herbert wrote: The appropriate response to this might be a Quebec Wikisource project (or, pick another French-speaking location, with a very non-French copyright policy which is more friendly to us in this circumstance). Wikilivres does exist: http://www.wikilivres.info/wiki/Main_Page The purpose of this site is to host texts and images in the public domain, or under a free licence. This site is hosted in Canada and therefore it follows the Canadian copyright law. Perhaps this is suitable? - -Mike -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkwG7c0ACgkQst0AR/DaKHsi6QCfZIJiRnb9HqVqO+zSA/nqUl3i nd8AoKieEZfPKDDyvdZ0x0tG5/E+/2/F =CLL5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Sorry for not saving the previous text, formatting was getting to be a bit of a mess. I do see that the page Yann linked to was created around the same time action was taken, by Cary, and lists the reason for the deletions and the content deleted. I'll assume this page was linked in several other places on fr.wikisource and didn't go unnoticed. It does seem to be that Yann is objecting to the enforcement of the demand, and perhaps the communication issue is less one between WMF and community and more (if anything) between WMF and the poster of content subject to a takedown. I'm curious why the Foundation doesn't take direct action when it is responding to a takedown notice - is it not relevant to these notices whether the recipient or someone else takes the action requested? While Yann did mention you and Cary by name, he did not accuse either of you of intentionally omitting or misleadingly characterizing facts. This isn't a court, perhaps it would be better to assume (or at least pretend to assume) good faith error on his part. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:49 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: The appropriate response to this might be a Quebec Wikisource project (or, pick another French-speaking location, with a very non-French copyright policy which is more friendly to us in this circumstance). The hope was that the Wikimedia Canada chapter would form soon, for this very reason. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Canada/Wikisource_Canada -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: We cannot inform you about all the details communicated in an ongoing negotiation with parties threatening us with litigation. Apart from whether doing so would be consistent with legal ethics, it would also provide a disincentive for complaining parties to negotiate with us at all. It sounds like you are suggesting that there is ongoing dialog between WMF and Gallimard.. ? Official legal policy is to comply with properly crafted takedown notices. This has been our policy since long before I arrived at WMF. I'm surprised that you didn't know this before now. And what is the process _after_ the takedown? Did the National Portrait Gallery not provide a properly crafted take down notice? -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:08 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: It sounds like you are suggesting that there is ongoing dialog between WMF and Gallimard.. ? There is not. And what is the process _after_ the takedown? The takedown is normally the end of the process. Unless you are asking something else. Please be aware that I cannot offer you legal advice about how to respond to a takedown. There are a number of resources online, including I believe on Wikipedia (or linked from there), that may give you pointers. One of the few put-up notices I have received was perfectly executed by a non-lawyer Wikipedian. Did the National Portrait Gallery not provide a properly crafted take down notice? That's correct. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Hello, 2010/6/3 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com: On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Yann suggests that he (and the Wikisource community) did not know about the takedown in a timely manner; anyone not watching the files or the deletion logs might have missed it if the only note was in the deletion log. But of course, the deletion log was not the only notice. And Yann Forget knew about the deletions at the time they occurred. If you can't communicate certain facts during negotiations, why not do so afterwards? Sometimes you can. I just did. But of course sometimes you can't, for reasons I've already outlined. (There's nothing magical about the passage of time that eliminates the disincentive effect of disclosing negotiations.) There is some tension built into this general issue, though; Cary advises that the fr.wikisource project needs to make its own decisions about what content to allow, based on a local interpretation of applicable law -- and then the Foundation deletes content without (a) providing advice on what is acceptable and what isn't and (b) without referring to the local decisions the project was advised to take. I'm not sure what advice you think it is even theoretically possible that the Foundation could have offered. Are you suggesting that the Foundation is acting as the lawyer for everyone who posts content to Wikisource? There are obvious reasons that is not a sustainable or feasible model. You seem to have the impression that the Foundation staff directly deleted the content. Actually, I shared the list with Cary, who shared the list with community members who implemented the takedown. (I deleted no content myself.) So you can see why the whole notion that the takedown wasn't shared with the community seems flatly wrong to me. We absolutely engaged community members in implementing the takedown. That's not exactly true. The deletions were done by a steward which is not a contributor to French Wikisource. Yann seems to suggest that our actions have been some kind of big secret. The reality, however, is that we did nothing in secret, and that Yann in fact has known what we did for quite a while now. We even made it trivially easy to contact Gallimard and complain about the takedown. But I do understand that it is easier to complain about WMF than it is to pursue Gallimard directly, even though doing the latter might be a more effective choice. I'll note also that the real complaint, as I perceive it, isn't really that we didn't communicate what we were doing. The real complaint is that we actually complied with a formally correct takedown notice, consistent with longstanding policy. I don't know where you got that, but I have never said such a thing. Yes, what I am complaining about is merely communication. The only notice was the following, which I find a bit short and dry. The Wikimedia Foundation received a request from Editions Gallimard to takedown content from the French Wikisource. This request is based on Editions Gallimard's claim that Wikisource content in the French language targets the French public, and therefore, under French conflict of laws principles, the copyright law of France applies to this content. A short phrase mentioning that might be a temporary deletion done according to the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act might be enough for us to find what is going on. If you cannot, or do not want explain yourself this process, you could have ask someone else to do it. I can't accept your assertion that every contributor has to be an expert on US copyright law. There are two other assertions which are false: 1. That I didn't inform the Wikisource community about Gallimard demand. I have always informed the community about the information I got, either from Gallimard, or from you. 2. That I try to avoid litigation. In fact I make a point not to hide behind a pseudonym, and I would send them my address to Gallimard if they ask for it. And they probably target me only because I am the only contributor which they were able to find the real identity. Now I have a few questions which you should be able to answer: 1. Did Gallimard send a lawsuit? If yes, the Wikisource community, and probably many other contributors might be interested to know about it. If not, how long do we have to wait before restoring the deleted works? 2. Is there on-going negotiations with Gallimard? 3. I am not sure I understand the process you mention in another mail about reposting the content, compliant with applicable notice-and-takedown law. Someone else might also be able to explain that. --Mike Regards, Yann ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
2010/6/3 Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com: 2. Is there on-going negotiations with Gallimard? Forget about that. I just read your mail after sending mine. Regards, Yann ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Ahh this is what I was looking for http://www.chillingeffects.org/responses/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1048#QID132 (at least us legal requirements for a counter notice) and their counter-notice generator http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf that may help you at least start James Alexander james.alexan...@rochester.edu jameso...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
