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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
41 matches
Mail list logo
