Re: [Wikimedia-l] US Copyright Law Forces Wikimedia to remove Public Domain Anne Frank Diary

[Lodewijk]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Lilburne 
wrote:

> On 16/02/2016 18:39, Lodewijk wrote:
>
>> If we were publishers trying to make a buck out of selling the work, I
>> would agree with you, and move on. However, that is not what we want to do
>> as a movement. We don't try to take advantage, but we want to build upon
>> works. We want to collaborate and stand on the shoulders of giants. Giants
>> like this little girl.
>>
>>
>>
> But that is exactly what you are doing. A publisher can fight for the
> right to make a buck
> without WP's help. A book of the diary costs a few pence, far less then
> the cost of the
> paper and ink for individual printing it. A digital copy is still a far
> inferior offering from a
> book version. I'm not sure that many actually prefer works like this as a
> pdf, html, or any
> other format over the book.
>
>
And that is indeed what I tried to explain in the following paragraphs. A
free work could offer more context (after all, it is over seventy years
later now, and many of the concepts she refers to are unknown to most of us
- let alone to people on the other side of the globe. Gladly, we have
websites like Wikipedia where many are described where we can link to).

Also, while the book is translated a lot, and maybe even record holder with
regards to availability in languages & sales, there are still languages it
has not been translated into. That is also an added value. And yes, a
publisher could then use those free texts to publish a dead-tree book with
it.

I am primarily trying to argue that this is not so much taking 'advantage'
but rather an opportunity to demonstrate what communities like ours are
able to accomplish. Why the public domain is good for spreading works.

Lodewijk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[SarahSV]

The grant application to the Knight Foundation says that the "Search Engine
by Wikipedia" budget for 2015–2016 is $2.4 million, and that this was
approved by the Board of Trustees. [1]

I can't find any reference to this in the minutes. Could one of the
trustees tell us which meeting approved it and what was discussed there?

​Sarah​

[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/a/a7/Knowledge_engine_grant_agreement.pdf
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wiki Loves Africa 2015 results

[Florence Devouard]

Good evening everyone

Another day... another announcement :)

We closed yesterday the last vote session for winning pictures of Wiki 
Loves Africa 2015.


We are happy to announce our winners

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Africa_2015/Winners

First picture is a very relaxing sight of two beautiful ladies having 
fun together on a sunny afternoon, from a Kenyan photograph. The picture 
is considered a Quality Image on Commons and is currently used to 
illustrate one article : friendship.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitié


Second picture was actually taken by a French citizen, and features a 
fashion designer in Senegal.

It currently illustrates one article about fashion :
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(habillement)


The third picture represent a lady in Ghana, also by a photograph (I 
found his site and facebook page, but got no answer from him...)
We actually used that picture to illustrate our Wiki Loves Women writing 
contest : 
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Wiki_Loves_Women/Concours_d%27écriture



The 4th picture is from Algeria and features a beautiful woman wearing 
an haik. This image has a featured status on Commons. It currently 
illustrate the article on veil : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil



The first 3 pictures have been selected by a mixed jury of wikipedians 
and non wikipedians (including photographers, developer, chemical 
engineer, fashion blogger, and fashion designer).
Jury composition available here : 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Africa_2015/FAQ#What_are_the_rules_of_the_contest_.3F

The 4th picture was chosen by the community.


Tunisia is the country who made it first in terms of number of images, 
followed closely by Côte d'Ivoire, our leader in 2014.



--

Whilst this was the continental contest, other winners were identified 
locally.


For example, check out winners in Algeria
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Africa_2015_in_Algeria#Our_Winner_in_Algeria

As you may notice, several of their images made it Quality Images or 
Featured Images status. And more prizes were delivered :)


--

In other countries, images have been celebrated differently.

For example, in Cameroon, a show of the best images have been set up at 
the Institut Français. Check out a few first pictures here : 
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.500234113496441.1073741904.365857010267486=3

The show room is open till 27th of February.

--

More details will be featured in a couple of weeks on Commons in a 
project report.


Florence


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The conversation is happening elsewhere :(

[Adam Wight]

Thanks for the note!  Fwiw, I can't read that without a login.  Feel free
to urge the owners to make the thread public, if base crook even supports
such a thing.
On Feb 16, 2016 4:47 PM, "Asaf Bartov"  wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> These are difficult and confusing times.  Many of you are puzzled or
> receiving partial and possibly contradictory bits and pieces of news.
>
> As a service to the community, I feel I must point out that significantly
> more conversation is taking place -- for whatever reason -- on the (public)
> Wikipedia Weekly facebook group[1].
>
> Without endorsing that choice of venue (the issues with Facebook are fairly
> well-known), it does appear that if you want significantly more
> information, you should head on over there and read through the last couple
> of weeks' posts. (much information is in the comments)
>
> (if you are inspired to collect and preserve useful information from there
> on Meta, that would be best.)
>
> In solidarity,
>
>Asaf
>
> [1] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/
>
> --
> Asaf Bartov
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] The conversation is happening elsewhere :(

[Asaf Bartov]

Dear colleagues,

These are difficult and confusing times.  Many of you are puzzled or
receiving partial and possibly contradictory bits and pieces of news.

As a service to the community, I feel I must point out that significantly
more conversation is taking place -- for whatever reason -- on the (public)
Wikipedia Weekly facebook group[1].

Without endorsing that choice of venue (the issues with Facebook are fairly
well-known), it does appear that if you want significantly more
information, you should head on over there and read through the last couple
of weeks' posts. (much information is in the comments)

(if you are inspired to collect and preserve useful information from there
on Meta, that would be best.)

In solidarity,

   Asaf

[1] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/

-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Another goodbye

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Dan Andreescu 
wrote:

> 
>
> Because we are not a tree, we are part of an ancient Aspen Grove.
>

*claps*

I hope this thread ends on this forward-looking note.

Well said, Dan.

-- 
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Product
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] US Copyright Law Forces Wikimedia to remove Public Domain Anne Frank Diary

[Lilburne]

On 16/02/2016 18:39, Lodewijk wrote:

If we were publishers trying to make a buck out of selling the work, I
would agree with you, and move on. However, that is not what we want to do
as a movement. We don't try to take advantage, but we want to build upon
works. We want to collaborate and stand on the shoulders of giants. Giants
like this little girl.




But that is exactly what you are doing. A publisher can fight for the 
right to make a buck
without WP's help. A book of the diary costs a few pence, far less then 
the cost of the
paper and ink for individual printing it. A digital copy is still a far 
inferior offering from a
book version. I'm not sure that many actually prefer works like this as 
a pdf, html, or any

other format over the book.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Another goodbye

[Dan Andreescu]

Asaf, and everyone else, really, I guess the time for silence is over.

I think that, just because Siko feels this way, now, about this wmf, and about 
this moment, doesn't mean that the next moment will maintain, integral, this 
same truth. It is the rest of us that get to craft the next moment. It is both 
with our skills and effort that we get to craft it.

I intend to bring love and respect into our next moment. Lila and our 
leadership have failed to bring us peace right now in this moment, but we will 
make peace and we will fix our problems.

Because we are not a tree, we are part of an ancient Aspen Grove.

  Original Message  
From: Asaf Bartov
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 18:17
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Another goodbye

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Siko Bouterse 
wrote:

> Transparency, integrity, community and free knowledge remain deeply
> important to me, and I believe I will be better placed to represent those
> values in a volunteer capacity at this time. I am and will always remain a
> Wikimedian, so you'll still see me around the projects (User:Seeeko),
> hopefully with renewed energy and joy in volunteering.
>

" [...]
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
-- W. B. Yeats

-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Improving transparency and communication

[Pete Forsyth]

Lodewijk,

Thank you for this suggestion. I drafted a proposal about a month ago for
something like this, as a community-initiated project; however, I agree
that something with explicit buy-in from the Board would be much better.
Still, perhaps this draft will be useful; it is Proposal #1 (of two) on
this page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Peteforsyth/Heilman15

Do keep in mind, it is a bit out of date; help in updating it and/or moving
it to main space as a more formal proposal is welcome.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> Hi Lila,
>
> Thank you for the update and the pointer.
>
> As you probably noted, there have been several 'incidents' quickly
> following each other, which worry me, and probably you too. You're saying
> that you welcome feedback and discussion, and that you're having internal
> conversations on how to improve communication.
>
> When problems continue like this in governments, you often see (well, this
> probably depends on the country) that a committee is appointed to
> investigate what is really the problem, and to come with some general
> recommendations for structural improvements.
>
> I'm not sure if this is the most effective method, but it might be an
> effective way to gain back a bit of trust. Why not appoint a small
> committee of a few trusted community members, that can get a bit more
> information (also when that has to remain confidential) and make some
> structural recommendations with regards to communicating with the
> community? Normally I'd expect the Board to take such role, but given
> recent events, I don't have the feeling the Board is best placed to do so.
>
> Just thinking out loud, maybe there are better ideas to approach this in a
> way that builds trust again.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Lila Tretikov 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > As promised, here is the blog post we published earlier today:
> > http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/16/wikimedia-search-future/ . We are
> > also
> > having internal conversations on how we can improve communication and
> > transparency to increase collaboration on ideation with all of you going
> > forward.
> >
> > I hope this helps contextualize the grant agreement and our broader
> efforts
> > while addressing some of the confusion around this topic. As always, I
> > welcome your feedback and discussion and look forward to our ongoing
> > discussion.
> >
> > Lila
> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Improving transparency and communication

[Lodewijk]

Hi Lila,

Thank you for the update and the pointer.

As you probably noted, there have been several 'incidents' quickly
following each other, which worry me, and probably you too. You're saying
that you welcome feedback and discussion, and that you're having internal
conversations on how to improve communication.

When problems continue like this in governments, you often see (well, this
probably depends on the country) that a committee is appointed to
investigate what is really the problem, and to come with some general
recommendations for structural improvements.

I'm not sure if this is the most effective method, but it might be an
effective way to gain back a bit of trust. Why not appoint a small
committee of a few trusted community members, that can get a bit more
information (also when that has to remain confidential) and make some
structural recommendations with regards to communicating with the
community? Normally I'd expect the Board to take such role, but given
recent events, I don't have the feeling the Board is best placed to do so.

Just thinking out loud, maybe there are better ideas to approach this in a
way that builds trust again.

Lodewijk

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> As promised, here is the blog post we published earlier today:
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/16/wikimedia-search-future/ . We are
> also
> having internal conversations on how we can improve communication and
> transparency to increase collaboration on ideation with all of you going
> forward.
>
> I hope this helps contextualize the grant agreement and our broader efforts
> while addressing some of the confusion around this topic. As always, I
> welcome your feedback and discussion and look forward to our ongoing
> discussion.
>
> Lila
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] US Copyright Law Forces Wikimedia to remove Public Domain Anne Frank Diary

[Yury Bulka]

WereSpielChequers  writes:

> I may have an unpopular view here, but when an author has been
> murdered, especially one so young, I find it distasteful to try to
> make that a test case re copyright. If Anne Frank hadn't been murdered
> she might well still be alive today, and presumably her work would
> still be in copyright.
>

This is one of the reasons why I believe that the current copyright
system (where the copyright term is determined by the date of author's
death) is flawed.

It results in a situation where certain works belonging to the same
historical period may have insanely different copyright terms.

-- 
Юрко Булка | Yury Bulka | gpg:
36DD 7515 B47D E2C9 9057 D440 D834 635C A947 0CA2

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Lila Tretikov]

Hi everyone,

As promised, here is the blog post we published earlier today:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/16/wikimedia-search-future/ . We are also
having internal conversations on how we can improve communication and
transparency to increase collaboration on ideation with all of you going
forward.

I hope this helps contextualize the grant agreement and our broader efforts
while addressing some of the confusion around this topic. As always, I
welcome your feedback and discussion and look forward to our ongoing
discussion.

Lila

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:

> + Footnotes.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Lila Tretikov 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> We plan to publish a blog tomorrow that addresses some of the questions
>> raised here and confusion in the press. To briefly address your questions
>> specifically, here is where we are today: the the grant allows us to pursue
>> strictly (1) -- a better Wiki search. In that, it supports testing of some
>> of our hypotheses on how to best do this.
>>
>> It is possible we could pursue (2) in the future (for example,
>> integrating a few specific ones such as OpenStreetMaps or Internet
>> Archive). At some point we have looked into (2+) -- adding broader
>> knowledge sources, though we didn't get into specifics there, and have
>> since decided against increasing the scope. I am not considering (3).
>> Going after general search engine traffic and users is inconsistent with
>> our mission. Our focus is on knowledge.
>>
>>
>> To be clear, search itself is only one aspect of the work of the
>> Discovery team.  This team is also tasked with discovering how to better
>> interconnect our various formats of knowledge, thus amplifying the impact
>> of our volunteers' contributions. Only some of our knowledge is actually
>> connected and discoverable today, other is very hard to find. Search is a
>> simple, non-invasive point of entry into the Wikimedia knowledge ecosystem.
>>
>> I welcome and appreciate the feedback and support of members of our
>> Wikimedia movement.  Collectively, our thinking evolves as we learn. We
>> will continue to make hypotheses, test them, and adjust our path
>> accordingly.
>>
>> Lila
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that
>> easier for users of the sites to find
>>
>> [2] Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other
>> like-minded sources into the mix (limited, identified sources)
>>
>> [2+] Wikimedia + other knowledge
>>
>> [3] Google-scale: crawl and index everything (duckduckgo-like) all
>> content included (shops, goods, etc.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Craig Franklin <
>> cfrank...@halonetwork.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this Michael.  Reading the
>>> documents
>>> I've seen, it seemed like (1) to me, but a lot of the assumptions seem to
>>> lean towards (3).  If it is (1), then that is an entirely reasonable
>>> thing
>>> for the Foundation to be putting development effort into.  The problem is
>>> that the statements in the grant documents are quite vague, and given the
>>> rest of the shenanigans that the WMF has been involved in lately, people
>>> are quite predictably jumping to the least flattering conclusion.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> On 16 February 2016 at 05:36, Michael Peel  wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > > On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen >> >
>>> > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Hoi,
>>> > > The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at
>>> that
>>> > > kind of money.
>>> >
>>> > I'm still confused about what kind of 'search engine' is actually being
>>> > proposed here. Is it:
>>> > 1) Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that
>>> > easier for users of the sites to find
>>> > 2) Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other
>>> > like-minded sources into the mix
>>> > 3) Google-scale: index everything (duckduckgo-like)
>>> > ... or somewhere on the scale between those points?
>>> >
>>> > A lot of people seem to be assuming (3), others are liking the idea of
>>> > (1), but (2) (or maybe (1) leading to (2)) might be closer to the
>>> reality?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Mike
>>> > ___
>>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> > 
>>> >
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] US Copyright Law Forces Wikimedia to remove Public Domain Anne Frank Diary

[Oliver Keyes]

If she'd lived, her book _wouldn't be so important to the entirety of
humankind_.

You have a feeling about what she'd do about it? You're putting words
in a Holocaust victim's mouth. For shame.

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
> Well.. I don't think if it is good point. I mean - I have rather feeling
> that if only she could, she would probably decide to release her diary to
> public domain. Or in other words - this text is so important to the entire
> humankind that its publishing should not be blocked by copyright law just
> in order to produce some extra income.
>
> We had similar case in Poland - regarding works of Janusz Korczak, of which
> copyright was extended due to some legal tricks which were very disputable.
> I helped a bit in legal battle to put his works back to public domain and
> am quite proud to do so...
>
>
>
> 2016-02-16 19:38 GMT+01:00 Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland <
> rient...@wikimedia.nl>:
>
>> I think you raise a very good point, Jonathan.  Anne Frank's diary is not
>> just any book.
>>
>> Paradoxically, the very fact that this is a special book by a special
>> author is also the reason why many people - especially in the Netherlands -
>> are uncomfortable about the recent and unexpected introduction of the
>> possibility that there is a co-author.
>>
>> Definitely, this is a very sensitive issue and Wikimedia Nederland is
>> proceeding very, very cautiously.  No-one should play copyright games with
>> Anne Frank's diary.
>>
>> (For those interested, ENWP has good information on the copyright issues:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diary_of_a_Young_Girl#Copyright_and_ownership_dispute
>> )
>>
>>
>> Sandra Rientjes
>> Directeur Wikimedia Nederland
>> 06 31786379
>>
>> verzonden vanaf mobiel
>> I may have an unpopular view here, but when an author has been murdered,
>> especially one so young, I find it distasteful to try to make that a test
>> case re copyright. If Anne Frank hadn't been murdered she might well still
>> be alive today, and presumably her work would still be in copyright.
>>
>> By all means we should be encouraging people to freely license things
>> openly, and arguing for open licensing against those who claim copyright on
>> faithful copies of out of copyright work, and for freedom of panorama in
>> countries less open about such things than Armenia or the UK.
>>
>> I'm sort of OK about as Michael Maggs put it  using it to "increase
>> awareness of the excessive length (95 years) of some US copyright terms."
>> Though I'd hope there are other examples where we don't look like taking
>> advantage of the murder of a child. I'm also OK with using this as an
>> example of us taking copyright seriously.
>>
>> But though it is an important work, is it really one we should be trying to
>> force into the open against the wishes of a charity set up by her
>> relatives?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Jonathan/WereSpielChequers
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] US Copyright Law Forces Wikimedia to remove Public Domain Anne Frank Diary

[Tomasz Ganicz]

Well.. I don't think if it is good point. I mean - I have rather feeling
that if only she could, she would probably decide to release her diary to
public domain. Or in other words - this text is so important to the entire
humankind that its publishing should not be blocked by copyright law just
in order to produce some extra income.

We had similar case in Poland - regarding works of Janusz Korczak, of which
copyright was extended due to some legal tricks which were very disputable.
I helped a bit in legal battle to put his works back to public domain and
am quite proud to do so...



2016-02-16 19:38 GMT+01:00 Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland <
rient...@wikimedia.nl>:

> I think you raise a very good point, Jonathan.  Anne Frank's diary is not
> just any book.
>
> Paradoxically, the very fact that this is a special book by a special
> author is also the reason why many people - especially in the Netherlands -
> are uncomfortable about the recent and unexpected introduction of the
> possibility that there is a co-author.
>
> Definitely, this is a very sensitive issue and Wikimedia Nederland is
> proceeding very, very cautiously.  No-one should play copyright games with
> Anne Frank's diary.
>
> (For those interested, ENWP has good information on the copyright issues:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diary_of_a_Young_Girl#Copyright_and_ownership_dispute
> )
>
>
> Sandra Rientjes
> Directeur Wikimedia Nederland
> 06 31786379
>
> verzonden vanaf mobiel
> I may have an unpopular view here, but when an author has been murdered,
> especially one so young, I find it distasteful to try to make that a test
> case re copyright. If Anne Frank hadn't been murdered she might well still
> be alive today, and presumably her work would still be in copyright.
>
> By all means we should be encouraging people to freely license things
> openly, and arguing for open licensing against those who claim copyright on
> faithful copies of out of copyright work, and for freedom of panorama in
> countries less open about such things than Armenia or the UK.
>
> I'm sort of OK about as Michael Maggs put it  using it to "increase
> awareness of the excessive length (95 years) of some US copyright terms."
> Though I'd hope there are other examples where we don't look like taking
> advantage of the murder of a child. I'm also OK with using this as an
> example of us taking copyright seriously.
>
> But though it is an important work, is it really one we should be trying to
> force into the open against the wishes of a charity set up by her
> relatives?
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan/WereSpielChequers
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: [Wmfall] February 2016 Lightning Talks

[Pine W]

Lightning talks start in about 5 minutes. Public link at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3fyCgBWvFc

Optional IRC participation in #wikimedia-tech. (Note, not #wikimedia-office)

Cheers,

Pine

--


Hi everyone,

Just a reminder that the February Lightning Talks
 start in
*25 minutes.*

Come join us in the 5th Floor Collab Space or follow along here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3fyCgBWvFc

IRC: #wikimedia-tech

Hope to see you there!
Megan


On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Kevin Leduc  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>
> The next Lightning Talks are scheduled for February 16th (two weeks from
> today).  We hope at least 4 people will sign up for the talks by Friday
> February 12th otherwise we will postpone them another month.  Lightning
> Talks are an opportunity for teams @ WMF & in the Community to showcase
> something they have achieved:  a quarterly goal, milestone, release, or
> anything of significance to the rest of the foundation and the movement as
> a whole.
>
>
> Each presentation will be 10 minutes or less including time for questions.
>
> Sign up here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Lightning_Talks#February_2016
>
>
> Next round of Lightning Talks:
>
> When: Tuesday February 16, 1900 UTC
> <
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Lightning+Talks=20160216T19=1440=1
>,
> 11am PST (We have added this Lightning Talk to the WMF Engineering, Fun &
> Learning, and Staff calendars)
>
> Where: 5th Floor
>
> Remotees: On-Air google hangout will be provided just before the meeting
>
> IRC: #wikimedia-tech
>
> YouTube stream: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3fyCgBWvFc
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kevin Leduc, Megan Neisler, Brendan Campbell
>
>
> ___
> Wmfall mailing list
> wmf...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfall
>
>


--
Megan Neisler
Project Coordinator- Engineering
Wikimedia Foundation
mneis...@wikimedia.org 



--
Megan Neisler
Project Coordinator- Engineering
Wikimedia Foundation
mneis...@wikimedia.org 
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] US Copyright Law Forces Wikimedia to remove Public Domain Anne Frank Diary

[Pharos]

This is also a major work that a lot of people in the global Jewish
community would feel is an important part of the public domain, and
enhancing of public education on these topics.

http://jewishfreeculture.org/sourcetexts/het-achterhuis-anne-frank-the-diary-of-anne-frank-amsterdam-1947/

Thanks,
Pharos

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> Hi Jonathan,
>
> We all realize how sensitive a subject this is. Not only because of the
> reasons you give, but also for the obvious reason that this is a highly
> influential and well known work we're talking about.
>
> If we were publishers trying to make a buck out of selling the work, I
> would agree with you, and move on. However, that is not what we want to do
> as a movement. We don't try to take advantage, but we want to build upon
> works. We want to collaborate and stand on the shoulders of giants. Giants
> like this little girl.
>
> Before the WMF deleted the pages from Wikisource, we were working on a
> context enriched version, and considering working on a free translation
> into English, which could then be used to spread the lessons this book can
> teach us to other languages beyond those in which it already is available.
> That would improve people's understanding, that would increase its reach.
>
> Please note that the Anne Frank Fund is not the only charity that works on
> this legacy. Other relevant organisations (I don't know if I can go into
> details publicly) were more supportive.
>
> Best regards,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:35 PM, WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I may have an unpopular view here, but when an author has been murdered,
> > especially one so young, I find it distasteful to try to make that a test
> > case re copyright. If Anne Frank hadn't been murdered she might well
> still
> > be alive today, and presumably her work would still be in copyright.
> >
> > By all means we should be encouraging people to freely license things
> > openly, and arguing for open licensing against those who claim copyright
> on
> > faithful copies of out of copyright work, and for freedom of panorama in
> > countries less open about such things than Armenia or the UK.
> >
> > I'm sort of OK about as Michael Maggs put it  using it to "increase
> > awareness of the excessive length (95 years) of some US copyright terms."
> > Though I'd hope there are other examples where we don't look like taking
> > advantage of the murder of a child. I'm also OK with using this as an
> > example of us taking copyright seriously.
> >
> > But though it is an important work, is it really one we should be trying
> > to force into the open against the wishes of a charity set up by her
> > relatives?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Jonathan/WereSpielChequers
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] US Copyright Law Forces Wikimedia to remove Public Domain Anne Frank Diary

[Lodewijk]

Hi Jonathan,

We all realize how sensitive a subject this is. Not only because of the
reasons you give, but also for the obvious reason that this is a highly
influential and well known work we're talking about.

If we were publishers trying to make a buck out of selling the work, I
would agree with you, and move on. However, that is not what we want to do
as a movement. We don't try to take advantage, but we want to build upon
works. We want to collaborate and stand on the shoulders of giants. Giants
like this little girl.

Before the WMF deleted the pages from Wikisource, we were working on a
context enriched version, and considering working on a free translation
into English, which could then be used to spread the lessons this book can
teach us to other languages beyond those in which it already is available.
That would improve people's understanding, that would increase its reach.

Please note that the Anne Frank Fund is not the only charity that works on
this legacy. Other relevant organisations (I don't know if I can go into
details publicly) were more supportive.

Best regards,
Lodewijk

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:35 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I may have an unpopular view here, but when an author has been murdered,
> especially one so young, I find it distasteful to try to make that a test
> case re copyright. If Anne Frank hadn't been murdered she might well still
> be alive today, and presumably her work would still be in copyright.
>
> By all means we should be encouraging people to freely license things
> openly, and arguing for open licensing against those who claim copyright on
> faithful copies of out of copyright work, and for freedom of panorama in
> countries less open about such things than Armenia or the UK.
>
> I'm sort of OK about as Michael Maggs put it  using it to "increase
> awareness of the excessive length (95 years) of some US copyright terms."
> Though I'd hope there are other examples where we don't look like taking
> advantage of the murder of a child. I'm also OK with using this as an
> example of us taking copyright seriously.
>
> But though it is an important work, is it really one we should be trying
> to force into the open against the wishes of a charity set up by her
> relatives?
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan/WereSpielChequers
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] US Copyright Law Forces Wikimedia to remove Public Domain Anne Frank Diary

[Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland]

I think you raise a very good point, Jonathan.  Anne Frank's diary is not
just any book.

Paradoxically, the very fact that this is a special book by a special
author is also the reason why many people - especially in the Netherlands -
are uncomfortable about the recent and unexpected introduction of the
possibility that there is a co-author.

Definitely, this is a very sensitive issue and Wikimedia Nederland is
proceeding very, very cautiously.  No-one should play copyright games with
Anne Frank's diary.

(For those interested, ENWP has good information on the copyright issues:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diary_of_a_Young_Girl#Copyright_and_ownership_dispute)


Sandra Rientjes
Directeur Wikimedia Nederland
06 31786379

verzonden vanaf mobiel
I may have an unpopular view here, but when an author has been murdered,
especially one so young, I find it distasteful to try to make that a test
case re copyright. If Anne Frank hadn't been murdered she might well still
be alive today, and presumably her work would still be in copyright.

By all means we should be encouraging people to freely license things
openly, and arguing for open licensing against those who claim copyright on
faithful copies of out of copyright work, and for freedom of panorama in
countries less open about such things than Armenia or the UK.

I'm sort of OK about as Michael Maggs put it  using it to "increase
awareness of the excessive length (95 years) of some US copyright terms."
Though I'd hope there are other examples where we don't look like taking
advantage of the murder of a child. I'm also OK with using this as an
example of us taking copyright seriously.

But though it is an important work, is it really one we should be trying to
force into the open against the wishes of a charity set up by her relatives?

Regards

Jonathan/WereSpielChequers



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] US Copyright Law Forces Wikimedia to remove Public Domain Anne Frank Diary

[WereSpielChequers]

I may have an unpopular view here, but when an author has been murdered, 
especially one so young, I find it distasteful to try to make that a test case 
re copyright. If Anne Frank hadn't been murdered she might well still be alive 
today, and presumably her work would still be in copyright.

By all means we should be encouraging people to freely license things openly, 
and arguing for open licensing against those who claim copyright on faithful 
copies of out of copyright work, and for freedom of panorama in countries less 
open about such things than Armenia or the UK.

I'm sort of OK about as Michael Maggs put it  using it to "increase awareness 
of the excessive length (95 years) of some US copyright terms." Though I'd hope 
there are other examples where we don't look like taking advantage of the 
murder of a child. I'm also OK with using this as an example of us taking 
copyright seriously.

But though it is an important work, is it really one we should be trying to 
force into the open against the wishes of a charity set up by her relatives?

Regards

Jonathan/WereSpielChequers



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] US Copyright Law Forces Wikimedia to remove Public Domain Anne Frank Diary

[geni]

On 16 February 2016 at 14:43, Michael Maggs  wrote:

> It's worth noting, if only to increase awareness of the excessive length
> (95 years) of some US copyright terms.
>


Thats hardly a US only thing though. The Leni Riefenstahl (yes that one)
film The Blue Light will have a 141 year copyright term.


-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 15 days to create (at least) 15 biographies on notable African women!

[Asaf Bartov]

Excellent results, and thanks for updating it, Anthere!

   A.

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Florence Devouard 
wrote:

> Good evening everyone !
>
> Results of the contest are published !
>
>
> At the end of the contest,
>
> 15 Anglophone teams (27 participants)
> 18 Francophone teams (24 participants)
> and 1 team (4 participants) from Armenian language (completely unexpected
> ... but so very welcome!)
>
> produced no less than ...
>
> 71 new biographies in English,
> 122 new biographies in French
> and 41 new articles in Armenian.
>
> This result is way beyond our expectations! And so incredibly great!
>
> Check out details here
> * In English :
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Women_Writing_Contest#Results
> * In French :
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Wiki_Loves_Women/Concours_d%27écriture/Résultats
> 
>
> Congrats everyone !
>
> Anthere
>
> Le 15/01/16 12:58, Florence Devouard a écrit :
>
> The Wiki Love Women writing contest is now officially open !
>>
>> Please join in to celebrate Wikipedia 15 by participating to the
>> bilingual (English/French) writing contest to increase the number of
>> notable African women that are covered on Wikipedia.
>> The contest is also meant as a starting point of Wiki Loves Women, a
>> content liberation project related to Women in Africa.
>>
>> We would love to see you participate to the writing contest !
>> If you want to, there are 3 ways to participate
>> * You want to create an article ? Please add your name here
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest/Teams
>> .
>> You may be solo, or you could seek the help of others to join your team.
>> Or you can join an already existing team. You must start a new article
>> (translation from another language is allowed). You have 15 days :)
>> * Or you may simply add suggestions for articles to write here :
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest/Articles_suggestions
>> .
>> Of course, be careful of notability etc.
>> * Or you would be willing to join the jury. If so, please drop to the
>> page
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest/Jury
>> to propose your help
>>
>> It is all meant to be an easy going contest... no hassle... just for the
>> pleasure of working together on a theme still little covered on
>> Wikipedia (even after 15 years...)
>>
>> Anthere and Isla
>>
>>
>> LINKS
>>
>> The writing contest :
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest
>>
>> On meta :
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Women_Writing_Contest
>>
>> Wiki Loves Women website : http://www.wikiloveswomen.org (bear with
>> us... still very new)
>>
>> Twitter #wikiloveswomen
>>
>> Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/WikiLovesWomen/
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] US Copyright Law Forces Wikimedia to remove Public Domain Anne Frank Diary

[Asaf Bartov]

Thank you, Sandra.

So long as a court has not ruled, it is important to not give up without a
fight.

  A.

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland <
rient...@wikimedia.nl> wrote:

> The situation concerning the copyright on Anne Frank's writings is quite
> complex - and it is not just US copyright which is causing problems.
>
> There appears to be some consensus that the Dutch text of the diary as
> first published in 1947 is now in the public domain in the Netherlands. But
> writings by Anne first published in 1986 remain under copyright until 2036.
>
> However, the current holder of the copyright, the Anne Frank Fund in
> Switzerland, is claiming that  Anne's father should be considered a
> co-author of the original diary. This would extend copyright until 2050, 70
> years after his death. Some experts in copyright-law feel this could be a
> valid argument, but the claim has sofar not been confirmed by any court.
> Experts on the writings of Anne Frank tend to dismiss it. Still, the
>  National Library of the Netherlands has already removed the text of the
> diary from their digital library
>  at the request of the Anne
> Frank Fund.
>
> Wikimedia Nederland is exploring what can be done to keep this very
> important book in the public domain.
>
> Sandra Rientjes
> Directeur/Executive Director Wikimedia Nederland
>
> tel.(+31) (0)30 3200238
> mob. (+31) (0)6 31786379
>
> www.wikimedia.nl
>
> *Postadres*: *
> Bezoekadres:*
> Postbus 167Mariaplaats 3
> 3500 AD  Utrecht Utrecht
>
> 2016-02-16 15:43 GMT+01:00 Michael Maggs :
>
> > I haven't seen any mention on this list of this recent news:
> >
> > This year The Diary of Anne Frank entered into the public domain in the
> > Netherlands, allowing millions of people around the world to read it for
> > free.
> > However, under U.S. law the book remains copyrighted, which prompted the
> > Wikimedia Foundation to remove a copy of the book from its servers, under
> > protest.
> >
> > It's worth noting, if only to increase awareness of the excessive length
> > (95 years) of some US copyright terms.
> >
> > Some people outside the Wiki world have noticed: see blog post here:
> >
> https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-copyright-law-forces-wikimedia-to-remove-public-domain-anne-frank-diary-160211/
> >
> > Michael
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When you have been to as many Wikimania's as I have been, you will know
that it is exactly the interaction with staff that enables a lot of things.
They have the consistency (in time) to make a difference, they are embedded
in an organisation that has always cared about what it is that is said.
This does not imply that it is often that you can make a real difference,
typically things change gradually and, that is good.

When Wikimania is only for volunteers, I do not need to come (I am a
volunteer).
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 16 February 2016 at 14:48, Henning Schlottmann 
wrote:

> On 09.02.2016 16:40, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> > When you cap Wikimania, who is not to come?
>
> Employees of the WMF and the chapters, other than WMF's community
> engagement team and maybe - just maybe - selected speakers as speakers,
> not as general participants.
>
> Wikimania is not for and about employees, they should not be welcome.
>
> Check out the speakers of the last few years: Employees have hijacked
> this volunteer event.
>
> Make Wikimania a volunteer conference again. Let volunteers share
> experiences and ideas, not listen to employees telling them what to do
> and how to do it.
>
> Ciao Henning
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

[Andrew Lih]

Your comments are inaccurate, not useful, and completely antithetical to
our principles.

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Henning Schlottmann 
wrote:

> On 09.02.2016 16:40, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> > When you cap Wikimania, who is not to come?
>
> Employees of the WMF and the chapters, other than WMF's community
> engagement team and maybe - just maybe - selected speakers as speakers,
> not as general participants.
>
> Wikimania is not for and about employees, they should not be welcome.
>
> Check out the speakers of the last few years: Employees have hijacked
> this volunteer event.
>
> Make Wikimania a volunteer conference again. Let volunteers share
> experiences and ideas, not listen to employees telling them what to do
> and how to do it.
>
> Ciao Henning
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

[Henning Schlottmann]

On 09.02.2016 16:40, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> When you cap Wikimania, who is not to come?

Employees of the WMF and the chapters, other than WMF's community
engagement team and maybe - just maybe - selected speakers as speakers,
not as general participants.

Wikimania is not for and about employees, they should not be welcome.

Check out the speakers of the last few years: Employees have hijacked
this volunteer event.

Make Wikimania a volunteer conference again. Let volunteers share
experiences and ideas, not listen to employees telling them what to do
and how to do it.

Ciao Henning





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] US Copyright Law Forces Wikimedia to remove Public Domain Anne Frank Diary

[Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland]

The situation concerning the copyright on Anne Frank's writings is quite
complex - and it is not just US copyright which is causing problems.

There appears to be some consensus that the Dutch text of the diary as
first published in 1947 is now in the public domain in the Netherlands. But
writings by Anne first published in 1986 remain under copyright until 2036.

However, the current holder of the copyright, the Anne Frank Fund in
Switzerland, is claiming that  Anne's father should be considered a
co-author of the original diary. This would extend copyright until 2050, 70
years after his death. Some experts in copyright-law feel this could be a
valid argument, but the claim has sofar not been confirmed by any court.
Experts on the writings of Anne Frank tend to dismiss it. Still, the
 National Library of the Netherlands has already removed the text of the
diary from their digital library
 at the request of the Anne
Frank Fund.

Wikimedia Nederland is exploring what can be done to keep this very
important book in the public domain.

Sandra Rientjes
Directeur/Executive Director Wikimedia Nederland

tel.(+31) (0)30 3200238
mob. (+31) (0)6  31786379

www.wikimedia.nl

*Postadres*: * Bezoekadres:*
Postbus 167Mariaplaats 3
3500 AD  Utrecht Utrecht

2016-02-16 15:43 GMT+01:00 Michael Maggs :

> I haven't seen any mention on this list of this recent news:
>
> This year The Diary of Anne Frank entered into the public domain in the
> Netherlands, allowing millions of people around the world to read it for
> free.
> However, under U.S. law the book remains copyrighted, which prompted the
> Wikimedia Foundation to remove a copy of the book from its servers, under
> protest.
>
> It's worth noting, if only to increase awareness of the excessive length
> (95 years) of some US copyright terms.
>
> Some people outside the Wiki world have noticed: see blog post here:
> https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-copyright-law-forces-wikimedia-to-remove-public-domain-anne-frank-diary-160211/
>
> Michael
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] US Copyright Law Forces Wikimedia to remove Public Domain Anne Frank Diary

[Michael Maggs]

I haven't seen any mention on this list of this recent news:

This year The Diary of Anne Frank entered into the public domain in the 
Netherlands, allowing millions of people around the world to read it for 
free.
However, under U.S. law the book remains copyrighted, which prompted the 
Wikimedia Foundation to remove a copy of the book from its servers, 
under protest.


It's worth noting, if only to increase awareness of the excessive length 
(95 years) of some US copyright terms.


Some people outside the Wiki world have noticed: see blog post here:  
https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-copyright-law-forces-wikimedia-to-remove-public-domain-anne-frank-diary-160211/ 



Michael
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,