I do, but I'm not trying to give legal advice, just discussing the issue.
Your reply seems to assume I think you cannot release into the public
domain. What I think I said is that I don't think there is a significant
problem, although when you look at some of the theoretical underpinnings
there are some questions. For example, there is the notion of consideration.
A contract is not binding unless both parties gave something. So, for
example, if I sign a contract to work for someone for a year without
anything at all in return the contract fails for lack of consideration.
Frequently a sum on $1.00 is specified as the selling price of a car or
piece of land that is in fact given away. It is thought that recitation is
necessary to make it legal.
What does Wikipedia (or any internet publisher) give in return for a release
of copyright? Publishing and distribution of the material.
As a practical matter, I will continue to rely on explicit written releases
of material into the public domain which I belive to be reasonable.
Fred
From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm
<macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com>om>, English Wikipedia
<wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 13:30:37 +0200
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] No PD
Besides, if you can't release your work into the public domain, does
that mean the United States government and creative commons (which I
assume to know their legal stuff) and numerous other organisations are
all wrong in doing so?
I don't think so.
Fred, do you have a law degree?
--Mgm
On Apr 9, 2005 12:28 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
Property can ordinarily be given away. What is
needed is clear intent. If
intellectual property is somehow an exception this would need to be
demonstrated. Definitive demonstration is probably impossible but one would
look in decisions of courts of appeal such as the Supreme Court of the
United States. I doubt they or other federal courts have addressed this
issue specifically.
I don't see how the language, "I release this image into the public
domain"
would fail.
If it is not sufficient by itself, estoppel would come into play. Estoppel
is the principle that if there is forseeable reliance on your representation
you can't come along later and say that what you said didn't really mean
what it seemed to.
Fred
From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm
<macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com>om>, English Wikipedia
<wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 10:50:15 +0200
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] No PD
What do you guys think about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#You_can.27t
_g
rant_your_work_into_the_public_domain?
The page this editor links to doesn't seem to have all that
authoritive sources as he claims and according to his userpage he's
not an lawyer or something either. Should we follow this up?
-- MacGyverMagic
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l