Sorry to start a new thread about this when I already posted under this
title a week ago but I guess that thread got buried in xmas tinsel so I'll
give it a go again. I'm also cross-posting to uk.legal (with followups to
uk.d-i-y) as I hope folks in the legal group may have more
knowledge/experience etc of the legal copyright issues. (BTW I know
uk.legal.moderated is better signal-to-noise than uk.legal but I don't
think one can cross-post to a .moderated group.)

In my earlier message I said:
I'm concerned that if we wait until the wiki contains many substantial
articles and then try to impose a copyright license it may cause
friction with existing contributors if they disagree with the specific
license chosen. OTOH I don't think we should rush into choosing a
specific license, so may I suggest that we (==Grunff as sysadmin :-))
configure our mediawiki to put in a placeholder copyright notice, under
the edit box on edit pages.

Maybe we could say something like "Contents of this Wiki will be subject
to a license yet to be determined but possibly like GFDL or Creative
Commons. If you are unhappy with the license eventually chosen you will
be able to edit your content out of the current article but it may not
be practicable to remove it from the system (i.e. it may still be
accessible under the page 'history'). Please consider this when deciding
whether to contribute content."

Colin Bignell (nightjar) replied thus:

It would not be possible to apply a retrospective copyright licence to
any contributor. That person retains the copyright to the work and would
have to agree the licence, or the work would have to be removed
completely. If that would not be possible, articles should not be
accepted until a licence is in place and an agreement to that licence is
a condition of work being accepted.

What do people think? IANAL but I'd have thought a statement such as I
suggested would constitute a copyright licence in itself and that people
contributing materials would by doing so accept their contributions being
used under a subsequently-decided licence (with the option of using the
wiki to edit out their work from the 'current edition' as it were, if they
wanted).

That would still leave the question of existing contributions i.e. before
we apply any licence. Some contributors are known and their agreement
could be sought. All are, presumably, readers of uk.d-i-y and likely to
follow discussions the would discussion in the group be 'reasonable'
notice that a licence is being applied and warning that if they're unhappy
they should get the system administrator to pull their stuff?

And what is the legal position of stuff contributed anonymously i.e. when
the wiki 'user' is recorded as an IP address rather than a registered user
name? Presumably in practical terms it would be hard enough for any
individual to lay claim to content attributed to an address that (for the
value of text already in the wiki) it could be discounted?

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
news
Sorry to start a new thread about this when I already posted under this
title a week ago but I guess that thread got buried in xmas tinsel so I'll
give it a go again. I'm also cross-posting to uk.legal (with followups to
uk.d-i-y) as I hope folks in the legal group may have more
knowledge/experience etc of the legal copyright issues. (BTW I know
uk.legal.moderated is better signal-to-noise than uk.legal but I don't
think one can cross-post to a .moderated group.)

In my earlier message I said:
I'm concerned that if we wait until the wiki contains many substantial
articles and then try to impose a copyright license it may cause
friction with existing contributors if they disagree with the specific
license chosen. OTOH I don't think we should rush into choosing a
specific license, so may I suggest that we (==Grunff as sysadmin :-))
configure our mediawiki to put in a placeholder copyright notice, under
the edit box on edit pages.

Maybe we could say something like "Contents of this Wiki will be subject
to a license yet to be determined but possibly like GFDL or Creative
Commons. If you are unhappy with the license eventually chosen you will
be able to edit your content out of the current article but it may not
be practicable to remove it from the system (i.e. it may still be
accessible under the page 'history'). Please consider this when deciding
whether to contribute content."

Colin Bignell (nightjar) replied thus:

It would not be possible to apply a retrospective copyright licence to
any contributor. That person retains the copyright to the work and would
have to agree the licence, or the work would have to be removed
completely. If that would not be possible, articles should not be
accepted until a licence is in place and an agreement to that licence is
a condition of work being accepted.

What do people think? IANAL but I'd have thought a statement such as I
suggested would constitute a copyright licence in itself and that people
contributing materials would by doing so accept their contributions being
used under a subsequently-decided licence (with the option of using the
wiki to edit out their work from the 'current edition' as it were, if they
wanted).

You are asking people to agree to a licence without knowing what the terms
of that licence are. That would be an unfair clause, which would make the
whole thing invalid.

.....
And what is the legal position of stuff contributed anonymously i.e. when
the wiki 'user' is recorded as an IP address rather than a registered user
name? Presumably in practical terms it would be hard enough for any
individual to lay claim to content attributed to an address that (for the
value of text already in the wiki) it could be discounted?

For anonymous written work, copyright applies for 70 years from the date of
publication. If the author is identified during that time, it applies for 70
years from the date of publication or from the death of the author,
whichever is the later. The problems that could arise from this is another
good reason to have the licence in place and for it to be a condition that
anyone submitting work accepts that licence, before any contributions are
accepted.

Colin Bignell

On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 02:24:59 GMT, John Stumbles
wrote:

Sorry to start a new thread about this when I already posted under this
title a week ago but I guess that thread got buried in xmas tinsel so I'll
give it a go again. I'm also cross-posting to uk.legal (with followups to
uk.d-i-y) as I hope folks in the legal group may have more
knowledge/experience etc of the legal copyright issues. (BTW I know
uk.legal.moderated is better signal-to-noise than uk.legal but I don't
think one can cross-post to a .moderated group.)

In my earlier message I said:
I'm concerned that if we wait until the wiki contains many substantial
articles and then try to impose a copyright license it may cause
friction with existing contributors if they disagree with the specific
license chosen. OTOH I don't think we should rush into choosing a
specific license, so may I suggest that we (==Grunff as sysadmin :-))
configure our mediawiki to put in a placeholder copyright notice, under
the edit box on edit pages.

Maybe we could say something like "Contents of this Wiki will be subject
to a license yet to be determined but possibly like GFDL or Creative
Commons. If you are unhappy with the license eventually chosen you will
be able to edit your content out of the current article but it may not
be practicable to remove it from the system (i.e. it may still be
accessible under the page 'history'). Please consider this when deciding
whether to contribute content."

Colin Bignell (nightjar) replied thus:

It would not be possible to apply a retrospective copyright licence to
any contributor. That person retains the copyright to the work and would
have to agree the licence, or the work would have to be removed
completely. If that would not be possible, articles should not be
accepted until a licence is in place and an agreement to that licence is
a condition of work being accepted.

What do people think? IANAL but I'd have thought a statement such as I
suggested would constitute a copyright licence in itself and that people
contributing materials would by doing so accept their contributions being
used under a subsequently-decided licence (with the option of using the
wiki to edit out their work from the 'current edition' as it were, if they
wanted).

No chance.

Anybody contributing to any such thing retains the copyright in their
work unless they assign that copyright away.

You can't retrospectively impose terms forcing them to assign the
copyright, which any such "licensing" scheme will be doing.

You really MUST get the copyright terms in place before accepting any
contributions, or you have no control over those contributions
accepted prior to you getting the terms in place.

You would have to remove all copies of their work if they demanded it.


That would still leave the question of existing contributions i.e. before
we apply any licence. Some contributors are known and their agreement
could be sought. All are, presumably, readers of uk.d-i-y and likely to
follow discussions the would discussion in the group be 'reasonable'
notice that a licence is being applied and warning that if they're unhappy
they should get the system administrator to pull their stuff?

And what is the legal position of stuff contributed anonymously i.e. when
the wiki 'user' is recorded as an IP address rather than a registered user
name? Presumably in practical terms it would be hard enough for any
individual to lay claim to content attributed to an address that (for the
value of text already in the wiki) it could be discounted?

I would not think it hard at all, if the person uses a service which
gives them a fixed IP address and that was the one recorded.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If you don't care where you are, then you ain't lost.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
news
Sorry to start a new thread about this when I already posted under this
title a week ago but I guess that thread got buried in xmas tinsel.....
..........................................No pal. It actually won "The Most
Boring Post of 2006 Award".
Didn't you get your trophy?

so I'll
give it a go again. I'm also cross-posting to uk.legal (with followups to
uk.d-i-y) as I hope folks in the legal group may have more
knowledge/experience etc of the legal copyright issues.

And that is why you have just earned "The First ****wit of 2007 Award".




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com