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 <m...@gondwanaland.com> 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 <m...@gondwanaland.com> > 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 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf