I just realised how packed with jargon my email was. Here's a bit of unpacking and links for those who do not regularly use this vocabulary:
*UDR: A Wikimedia Commons undeletion request (DR = deletion request)* See <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests> *URAA: Uruguay Round Agreements Act* This is a US law that restored copyrights in the U.S. on foreign works, see <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:URAA-restored_copyrights>. For the global projects of Wikimedia, this was controversial as it has the potential for public domain works in their home country, to be newly claimed as copyright in the USA. *DMCA: Digital Millennium Copyright Act* This is another US law that, among other things, better defined penalties for internet copyright theft and made it clearer for internet service providers their duties to block access to copyright infringing material when they were notified of a credible copyright claim. These claims of copyright are called "DMCA notices". Within the Wikimedia projects, the Foundation may takes action to remove material subject to DMCA notices, though there have been cases where some claim were not found legally credible. A number of past notices for files deleted from Wikimedia Commons is at < https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices> (As far as I am aware, none has ever relied on the URAA as a rationale for copyright.) Fae On 3 April 2014 21:34, Fæ <[email protected]> wrote: > I suggest avoiding getting too drawn into heated debate, neither do > you need to take responsibility by yourself. > > As always, Commons benefits from having a good case book to illustrate > policy. As well as the UDRs being raised, it would not hurt to re-hash > some of the DRs for marginal cases. I would not criticise anyone for > applying a DR so specific cases can have further discussion. If there > have been any DMCA related incidents these would be great to > illustrate the issue. > > As mentioned on IRC, if a number of the Commons admins remain > concerned as to who would be liable for damages/claims in the case of > restoring material on Commons, then we (Commonsists) should seek > independent advice (considering our small number of active admins, it > is fair that we should seek to protect their interests). To date, the > WMF have not given admins or uploaders any comfort that they are not > liable for the consequences of their actions in uploading or > undeleting media that they know to be suspect against the URAA, I do > not believe they ever will receive comfort. This is an area worth > development on-wiki, better to understand the risk, and to have > specific advice on record to refer back to should anything go wrong. > > In the meantime, don't sweat too much over individual restorations or > re-deletions, instead use these as cases for the bigger picture. > > Fae > > On 3 April 2014 21:00, Yann Forget <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Well, it doesn't go so easily. Some Commons admins refuse to accept the >> community decision, and want to maintain the status quo inspite of the huge >> majority of opinions for supporting this. They are usually the most vocal >> and bold admins. >> Some admins are supporting it, some are afraid to go against the bolder >> ones. Some admins who support it do not take part because of language issue. >> >> Some admins specifically said that they would go against the community, no >> matter what. One admin even says that the >> >> I am open for suggestions how to go forwards. >> >> Regards, >> >> Yann > -- > [email protected] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae -- [email protected] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
