[Foundation-l] [Commons-l] PD-art and official "position of the WMF"

Sat Sep 13 17:35:00 UTC 2008

Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Patricia Rodrigues wrote
>> *Is the official position of the WMF to consider only US 
>> copyright in what concerns content to be hosted in any Wikimedia 
>> project?
>>     
> >From a philosopical standpoint, I doubt that this kind of question 
> is useful.  In order to guarantee that content can be reused 
> freely everywhere, you need to consider not only copyright law but 
> also laws on privacy, blasphemy, national security, etc.  Images 
> that we share, such as caricatures of national leaders and photos 
> of train stations, might be unlawful in various countries.  To 
> what extent should we let that stop us?
>
> Exactly what is legal or illegal varies from place to place and 
> from time to time.  It can only be determined by a court of law, 
> and not by a popular vote on Commons, or by any statement from the 
> board of the WMF.  Even though WMF/Commons policies can provide a 
> guideline, it is impossible to guarantee that any image or content 
> is "safe" or "free" for any use.  That cannot be the goal for such 
> policies.  Instead, such policies must have the limited goal of 
> protecting the WMF, so it can continue to function.
>
>   
I very much agree with this approach.  If we comply with the lowest 
common denominator of all laws we may find ourselves stifled in our 
ability to do anything.  The areas of law that would need to be 
considered go well beyond mere copyright law. 

Votes on Commons, or any subset of the broad Wiki community are more 
often than not based on the voters' ignorance of the law.  Statutory 
provisions are only a small part of the law; they are subject to highly 
varied interpretation, and often to constitutional challenge.  So it is 
painful when, like Alice, someone proclaims his interpretation to be law 
because he remembers having seen it in a book somewhere.

The Board would be doing everyone a disservice if it sought to 
micromanage legal policy to satisfy all those who are chronically 
fearful of being sued.  The Board needs to rule based on reasonable 
probabilities that failure to act will have dire consequences.  It is 
not required to comply with the obscure provisions of every forsaken 
corner of the world.  It needs to resist the paranoid tendencies of 
those who lack the courage to accept their own responsibilities, and 
would rely on the illusion that there is some bright line behind which 
they could feel absolutely protected.

The real requirement is simple: If you feel that it would be illegal in 
your country and circumstances to upload certain material, don't do it.  
You have no need to impose on them some silly notion that you are your 
brothers' keeper.

Ec