Re: [Wikimedia-SF] [Publicpolicy] US/California AB 2880 vs PD-California?

2016-05-16 Thread Pete Forsyth 
Thanks for sharing this, Mike. Sounds like something we should discuss at
the upcoming WikiSalon next Wednesday evening. I have some friends (outside
the wiki world) who know California lawmaking fairly well, I will ask
around a bit beforehand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bay_Area_WikiSalon,_May_2016

-Pete

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Mike Linksvayer 
wrote:

> On 05/15/2016 08:07 PM, John P. Sadowski wrote:
> > That is quite troubling, given that the committee approvals were
> > near-unanimous.  Is it possible that the bill could be interpreted
> > to apply retroactively, meaning we'd have to remove those 1048 items?
>
> I don't see anything retroactive in the text, but I also don't see
> anything that would strictly prohibit state agencies and local
> governments from treating previous publications as subject to copyright.
>
> I see that User:Gazebo has posted at
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Proposed_law_in_California_to_extend_copyright_to_CA_state_and_local_government_works
> to no discussion yet.
>
> > Any idea when the bill comes up with a vote?  Wikimedia DC could
> > possibly draft and send a letter giving Wikimedia-specific examples,
> > or we could work with the Foundation legal team to do so.
>
> I don't know when it can be expected to come up for a vote. I should
> know more about California lawmaking than I do, which is almost nothing.
> I've copied wikimedia-sf; maybe some local California government maven
> lurks there and could say.
>
> Mike
>
>
> >> On May 15, 2016, at 9:47 PM, Mike Linksvayer 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/ab-2880 "California's Legislature
> >> Wants to Copyright All Government Works"
> >>
> >> More background at
> >>
> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160417/09213934197/california-assembly-looks-to-push-cities-to-copyright-trademark-everything-they-can.shtml
> >>
> >> According to http://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/ California is one
> >> of the three most "open" regarding government works. Presumably it won't
> >> be anymore if AB 2880 becomes law.
> >>
> >> California is one of only two U.S. states with a category under
> >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_domain_by_government
> >> -- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PD_California (1048
> items).
> >>
> >> I haven't investigated whether and how many of those items would be
> >> subject to copyright had AB 2880 been California law at the times of
> >> their publication.
> >>
> >> Skimming the bill's changes to present law at
> >>
> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2880
> >> it seems the one or two maybe dangerous additions are these:
> >>
> >>> A public entity may own, license, and, if it deems it appropriate,
> >>> formally register intellectual property it creates or otherwise
> >>> acquires.
> >>
> >> The assembly's analysis views this as a clarification, but it could open
> >> the door to widespread use (or copyright apologists would say, abuse) of
> >> copyright by local government, as the EFF says, "to chill speech, stifle
> >> open government, and harm the public domain."
> >>
> >>> (A) A state agency shall not enter into a contract under this
> >>> article that waives the state’s intellectual property rights unless
> >>> the state agency, prior to execution of the contract, obtains the
> >>> consent of the department to the waiver.
> >>>
> >>> (B) An attempted waiver of the state’s intellectual property rights
> >>> by a state agency that violates subparagraph (A) shall be deemed
> >>> void as against public policy.
> >>
> >> It is not clear to me whether this addition might serve as a barrier to
> >> agencies deciding to publish material under open licenses. In the
> >> meantime, I assume it will foster such barriers in practice.
> >>
> >> https://twitter.com/mitchstoltz/status/731282363674562560 says
> "[EFF]'ll
> >> probably issue an action alert, but meantime, call your state assembly
> >> member's office & ask them to oppose."
> >>
> >> If this is indeed a threat, I wonder if there's anything Wikimedians can
> >> do to oppose it, in addition to those of us in California calling our
> >> state assembly members?
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Publicpolicy mailing list
> >> publicpol...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
> >
> > ___
> > Publicpolicy mailing list
> > publicpol...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
> >
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-SF mailing list
> Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
>
___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] [Publicpolicy] US/California AB 2880 vs PD-California?

2016-05-16 Thread Mike Linksvayer 
On 05/15/2016 08:07 PM, John P. Sadowski wrote:
> That is quite troubling, given that the committee approvals were
> near-unanimous.  Is it possible that the bill could be interpreted
> to apply retroactively, meaning we'd have to remove those 1048 items?

I don't see anything retroactive in the text, but I also don't see
anything that would strictly prohibit state agencies and local
governments from treating previous publications as subject to copyright.

I see that User:Gazebo has posted at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Proposed_law_in_California_to_extend_copyright_to_CA_state_and_local_government_works
to no discussion yet.

> Any idea when the bill comes up with a vote?  Wikimedia DC could
> possibly draft and send a letter giving Wikimedia-specific examples,
> or we could work with the Foundation legal team to do so.

I don't know when it can be expected to come up for a vote. I should
know more about California lawmaking than I do, which is almost nothing.
I've copied wikimedia-sf; maybe some local California government maven
lurks there and could say.

Mike


>> On May 15, 2016, at 9:47 PM, Mike Linksvayer  wrote:
>>
>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/ab-2880 "California's Legislature
>> Wants to Copyright All Government Works"
>>
>> More background at
>> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160417/09213934197/california-assembly-looks-to-push-cities-to-copyright-trademark-everything-they-can.shtml
>>
>> According to http://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/ California is one
>> of the three most "open" regarding government works. Presumably it won't
>> be anymore if AB 2880 becomes law.
>>
>> California is one of only two U.S. states with a category under
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_domain_by_government
>> -- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PD_California (1048 items).
>>
>> I haven't investigated whether and how many of those items would be
>> subject to copyright had AB 2880 been California law at the times of
>> their publication.
>>
>> Skimming the bill's changes to present law at
>> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2880
>> it seems the one or two maybe dangerous additions are these:
>>
>>> A public entity may own, license, and, if it deems it appropriate,
>>> formally register intellectual property it creates or otherwise
>>> acquires.
>>
>> The assembly's analysis views this as a clarification, but it could open
>> the door to widespread use (or copyright apologists would say, abuse) of
>> copyright by local government, as the EFF says, "to chill speech, stifle
>> open government, and harm the public domain."
>>
>>> (A) A state agency shall not enter into a contract under this
>>> article that waives the state’s intellectual property rights unless
>>> the state agency, prior to execution of the contract, obtains the
>>> consent of the department to the waiver.
>>>
>>> (B) An attempted waiver of the state’s intellectual property rights
>>> by a state agency that violates subparagraph (A) shall be deemed
>>> void as against public policy.
>>
>> It is not clear to me whether this addition might serve as a barrier to
>> agencies deciding to publish material under open licenses. In the
>> meantime, I assume it will foster such barriers in practice.
>>
>> https://twitter.com/mitchstoltz/status/731282363674562560 says "[EFF]'ll
>> probably issue an action alert, but meantime, call your state assembly
>> member's office & ask them to oppose."
>>
>> If this is indeed a threat, I wonder if there's anything Wikimedians can
>> do to oppose it, in addition to those of us in California calling our
>> state assembly members?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> ___
>> Publicpolicy mailing list
>> publicpol...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
> 
> ___
> Publicpolicy mailing list
> publicpol...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
> 


___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf