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 w
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
>> h
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 providin
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> As an example consider an orphan work last published in the United
>> States more than seventy years ago. It would at first glance appear to
>> qualify for the shorter libraries and archives rule for republication.
>> When it ap
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> As an example consider an orphan work last published in the United
> States more than seventy years ago. It would at first glance appear to
> qualify for the shorter libraries and archives rule for republication.
> When it appears at wikisource there is a discussion t
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> geni wrote:
> > On 7 June 2010 19:21, Ryan Kaldari 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.wikipedi
geni wrote:
> On 7 June 2010 19:21, Ryan Kaldari 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 augm
Corrected.
Ryan Kaldari
On 6/7/10 12:02 PM, geni wrote:
> On 7 June 2010 19:21, Ryan Kaldari 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/Wikipedi
On 7 June 2010 19:21, Ryan Kaldari 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 additional info.
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
_
Nathan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> It seems then that there is a question of jurisdiction involved. It has
>> been my long held understanding that the Wikimedia projects have
>> operated under the laws of the United States, and that WMF has been
>> consist
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
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 6:33 AM, 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 notice"
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 a
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 e
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 15:54, Mike Godwin 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
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Andre Engels 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 in issuing
> count
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Mike Godwin 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 strategies.)
Sure
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 15:54, Mike Godwin 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 occasion? Aren't they w
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 leg
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Peter Gervai 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 reasonably expec
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
>> a lawsuit).
>>
>
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Ray Saintonge 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
>> lots of
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
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 be
On 3 June 2010 21:42, Ryan Kaldari 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 and legally asserti
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 b
2010/6/3 David Gerard :
> On 3 June 2010 16:14, David Gerard 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
On 3 June 2010 16:14, David Gerard 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 a takedown not
On 3 June 2010 15:26, Mike Godwin wrote:
> It turns out that foreign copyright judgments are more easily enforceable
> against U.S. entities in United States courts than other kinds of
> judgments, due to the copyright lobby's efforts to shape international
> copyright and enforcement treaties.
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> It seems then that there is a question of jurisdiction involved. It has
> been my long held understanding that the Wikimedia projects have operated
> under the laws of the United States, and that WMF has been consistent in its
> view that
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> It seems then that there is a question of jurisdiction involved. It has
> been my long held understanding that the Wikimedia projects have
> operated under the laws of the United States, and that WMF has been
> consistent in its view that ch
Mike Godwin 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 the French
>> public. Wikisource do
Hello,
2010/6/3 James Alexander :
> 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
Obligatory: I'm not a lawyer (or an expert) but did try to poke around a bit
for you.
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Yann Forget wrote:
>
>
1. Did Gallimard send a lawsuit? If yes, the Wikisource community, and
> probably many other contributors might be interested to know about it.
> If not,
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
j
2010/6/3 Yann Forget :
> 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: https://lists.wikimedia.o
Hello,
2010/6/3 Mike Godwin :
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Nathan 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 the only note was in the
>>
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:08 PM, John Vandenberg 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 are asking
so
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Mike Godwin 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
> disincentive for c
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:49 AM, 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 circumstance).
The hope was that the Wikimed
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
-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 circumstan
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Mike Godwin 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 the Fre
Hoi,
Thanks for a nice and adequate response.
GerardM
On 3 June 2010 00:04, Mike Godwin 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
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 the French
> public. Wikisource does not target the French public p
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> 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 publ
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Nathan 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 the only note was in the
> deletion log.
But of course, the d
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
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:45 PM, wrote:
>
>
> It's not about what you cannot do, it's about what you CAN do.
> In light of the evidence that some of the works are in the public domain in
> France, are you willing to stop taking down the material? That's the real
> issue here.
>
> We can simply re
In a message dated 6/2/2010 1:09:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mnemo...@gmail.com writes:
> Please understand that if you have problems with French copyright law,
> there's nothing I can do about that from here in California. >>
It's not about what you cannot do, it's about what you CAN do.
In l
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Yann Forget 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 with litigation
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,
Ger
2010/6/2 Mike Godwin :
> 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 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
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> 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 bot
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Eugene Zelenko
wrote:
> I think it's reasonable to account country of origin copyrights laws
> too as Commons does, especially with Wikisource editions other then
> English, where majority of text most likely originated outside of USA.
> And majority of audience al
Hello,
2010/6/2 Eugene Zelenko :
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Yann Forget 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 domain in USA, but not in Fra
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 opin
Hi!
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Yann Forget 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 domain in USA, but not in France. I was told that "the
> community is ent
Hello,
In the beginning of March 2010, a few hundreds files have been deleted
on the French Wikisource following a request from Gallimard, a leading
French publisher. [1] The Wikimedia Foundation received a request from
Editions Gallimard to takedown content from the French Wikisource.
This reques
62 matches
Mail list logo
