Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Takedown Notice was Copyrightviolation

From: "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149-/[email protected]>
> Alex wrote:
> >These are both good suggestions, it is more accurate
> >to say "open content" than free (implying PD) and the
> >link back is giving someone an easy way to comply with
> >the GFDL, and very specific directions on how to do it.
>
> While "open content' does include things like the GNU FDL it also includes
> non-free licenses (like the OPL with its two options exercised or even the
> FDL with invariant sections). So it would be more correct to say "free
> content" and have that be a link to the copyright page.
>
> >Of course the question of sending out these notices
> >needs to be vetted by Wikimedia as it would involve
> >some "corporate" action as it would be invoking the
> >name of Wikimedia.
>
> Yeah.
>
> To Jimbo: Why has it been taking so long to set-up a Wikimedia board of
> directors and coporate officers? Wikimedia /needs/ such a structure in
order
> to be a viable coporation and many people have volunteered to either help
> with the nuts and bolts and/or perform the the coporate roles.

I don't think it is necessarily a long time. These things take time to
formalize.

> As it is none of us have official roles and thus have no authority to do
> things like write a take-down notice for Wikipedia content we didn't
> significantly contribute to. There also has been a good deal of talk about
> setting-up Wikipedia legal entities in other nations. If we had an
effective
> Wikimedia Foundation, then I imagine that there would be less of a need
for
> that.

Wikimedia is an effective organization, Jimbo started it and the Association
of Wikipedians can work with it. See [[Meta:Association of Wikipedians]].
It has already done a lot, raising money and developing a plan for the
perpetual
future of the various Wikipedia projects.

Really the question of authority to calim Wikipedia infringement and the
Wikimedia Foundation are two different things. I think that anyone who has \
contributed to an articleis one of the copyright owners and thus has a claim
under the DCMA. This may seem contradictory to my last post, but if you
examine it closely I think you will see that it is not. Perhaps a copyright
owner
cannot issue a takedown notice  in the name of Wikimedia, but they can do
it in their own name, even a release under the GFDL is still under copyright
law.

Alex756