Mailing List Archive

Re: [Announcement] French lawsuit against WMF won in court
Michael Bimmler a écrit :
> On 11/2/07, Platonides <Platonides@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OT: What's the meaning of CA on the favicon?
>>
>>
> Conseil d'administration [=board] maybe? Might be that the favicon has
> been taken from a WmFR-Board wiki or something. Just guessing...
>
> Michael
>

Yes, I don't know if we can change this icon... It doesn't really
matter, because we will use SPIP in few weeks.


>> http://www.lemonde.fr/web/depeches/0,14-0,39-33068926@7-50,0.html
>> Article in Le Monde (in french)
>>
>>

--
Pierre Beaudouin
Président de Wikimédia France
http://www.wikimedia.fr

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Announcement] French lawsuit against WMF won in court [ In reply to ]
> Michael Bimmler a écrit :
>> Conseil d'administration [=board] maybe? Might be that the favicon has
>> been taken from a WmFR-Board wiki or something. Just guessing...

Interesting, i thought in Wikimedia Canada...


Pierre Beaudouin a écrit:
> Yes, I don't know if we can change this icon...
Just replace http://www.wikimedia.fr/favicon.ico

>It doesn't really matter, because we will use SPIP in few weeks.
How brave, leaving home CMS ;)
But favicon is not really software dependant.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Announcement] French lawsuit against WMF won in court [ In reply to ]
"We maintain that WMF is not the publisher, owner or monitor on any of the
Wikipedia projects (and obviously not the WP FR). We are pleased to have our
position upheld and supported in a court of law."

I guess that was one of the compelling reasons to put aside the claim. Has
the Board considered the implications on this policy from the moment the
Foundation starts paying for content, as foreseen in the Greenspan
illustration project?

Peter boelens





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Announcement] French lawsuit against WMF won in court [ In reply to ]
peter boelens wrote:
> "We maintain that WMF is not the publisher, owner or monitor on any of the
> Wikipedia projects (and obviously not the WP FR). We are pleased to have our
> position upheld and supported in a court of law."
>
> I guess that was one of the compelling reasons to put aside the claim. Has
> the Board considered the implications on this policy from the moment the
> Foundation starts paying for content, as foreseen in the Greenspan
> illustration project?
>
> Peter boelens
>
Yes, we've thought this through, thanks Peter. In the event that this
became an issue, our position would be that the Foundation itself is not
paying for content; it is just facilitating a relationship between a
donor who wants to see a particular thing happen in the projects, and a
trusted volunteer who shares the same goal.

It's hair-splitting maybe, but legalities generally are :-)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Announcement] French lawsuit against WMF won in court [ In reply to ]
On Nov 3, 2007 10:56 AM, Sue Gardner <sgardner@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Yes, we've thought this through, thanks Peter. In the event that this
> became an issue, our position would be that the Foundation itself is not
> paying for content; it is just facilitating a relationship between a
> donor who wants to see a particular thing happen in the projects, and a
> trusted volunteer who shares the same goal.
>
> It's hair-splitting maybe, but legalities generally are :-)

Even if this position failed (but why would it? it's the most
truthful...) surely a court could wrap its head around the idea that
an origination can be the publisher of some information and a
non-publishing service provider of other information, and that said
org should only be responsible for libelous content for which it
published. An illustration project just doesn't create a lot of libel
claim related exposure.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Announcement] French lawsuit against WMF won in court [ In reply to ]
> Yes, we've thought this through, thanks Peter. In the event that this
> became an issue, our position would be that the Foundation itself is not
> paying for content; it is just facilitating a relationship between a
> donor who wants to see a particular thing happen in the projects, and a
> trusted volunteer who shares the same goal.
>
> It's hair-splitting maybe, but legalities generally are :-)

That might well work. It does mean that the suggestions in another
thread about getting round all the paperwork by simply buying the
images, rather than hiring someone to produce them, would not be an
option. Looks like the WMF is just going to have to fill out a load of
forms...

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Announcement] French lawsuit against WMF won in court [ In reply to ]
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Yes, we've thought this through, thanks Peter. In the event that this
>> became an issue, our position would be that the Foundation itself is not
>> paying for content; it is just facilitating a relationship between a
>> donor who wants to see a particular thing happen in the projects, and a
>> trusted volunteer who shares the same goal.
>>
>> It's hair-splitting maybe, but legalities generally are :-)
>>
>
> That might well work. It does mean that the suggestions in another
> thread about getting round all the paperwork by simply buying the
> images, rather than hiring someone to produce them, would not be an
> option. Looks like the WMF is just going to have to fill out a load of
> forms...
>
>
Probably, yes :-)

This is very much an experiment. We think it's a pretty good one to
trial-and-error with, because 1., Brianna Laugher, the volunteer, is
highly trusted and effective; 2., Philip Greenspun, the donor, is
sympathetic to our goals generally, and open to experimenting with us.
He's also one person rather than an institution, which will make it
fairly easy for us all to refine/finetune as we go. And 3., this is a
large enough amount of money to make the project worthwhile on its own
merits, but not so very large that we are locked in to something for a
long period of time, if it turns out that it doesn't work very well.
We're really grateful to Philip for being willing to try it out.

One goal here is simply to get more good illustrations into the projects
- that's a worthy end result, obviously, in & of itself. But we're also
aiming to see if the general idea -funneling restricted donations to
community members for execution- is workable. To the extent that it does
work, it could be very powerful.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Announcement] French lawsuit against WMF won in court [ In reply to ]
> Probably, yes :-)
>
> This is very much an experiment. We think it's a pretty good one to
> trial-and-error with, because 1., Brianna Laugher, the volunteer, is
> highly trusted and effective; 2., Philip Greenspun, the donor, is
> sympathetic to our goals generally, and open to experimenting with us.
> He's also one person rather than an institution, which will make it
> fairly easy for us all to refine/finetune as we go. And 3., this is a
> large enough amount of money to make the project worthwhile on its own
> merits, but not so very large that we are locked in to something for a
> long period of time, if it turns out that it doesn't work very well.
> We're really grateful to Philip for being willing to try it out.
>
> One goal here is simply to get more good illustrations into the projects
> - that's a worthy end result, obviously, in & of itself. But we're also
> aiming to see if the general idea -funneling restricted donations to
> community members for execution- is workable. To the extent that it does
> work, it could be very powerful.

100% agree. This seems like an excellent opportunity to work out how
to implement schemes like this. If it turns out we can do it quite
easily, then we can do more of them, possibly larger ones, possibly
smaller ones. If it doesn't work, we know not to waste time in future.
I just want to be sure people aren't assuming this will be easy - it
may well not be, and we certainly don't want to jump in head first
without thinking everything through.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Announcement] French lawsuit against WMF won in court [ In reply to ]
Michael Bimmler wrote:
> On 11/2/07, Platonides <Platonides@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OT: What's the meaning of CA on the favicon?
>>
> Conseil d'administration [=board] maybe? Might be that the favicon has
> been taken from a WmFR-Board wiki or something. Just guessing...
>
>> http://www.lemonde.fr/web/depeches/0,14-0,39-33068926@7-50,0.html
>> Article in Le Monde (in french)
>>
I note the last paragraph of the article:

Si cette décision est encourageante pour les hébergeurs, elle ne
constitue en rien une jurisprudence. D'autant que ces derniers mois,
d'autres tribunaux ont rendu des décisions qui allaient en sens
inverse en reconnaissant la responsabilité éditoriale des hébergeurs.

How are these other cases distinguished from our case?

Ec


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Announcement] French lawsuit against WMF won in court [ In reply to ]
Sue Gardner wrote:
> One goal here is simply to get more good illustrations into the projects
> - that's a worthy end result, obviously, in & of itself. But we're also
> aiming to see if the general idea -funneling restricted donations to
> community members for execution- is workable. To the extent that it does
> work, it could be very powerful.
IIRC there was a certain amount of this that happened when private funds
were provided for articles to be written in the Ossetian and Bambara WPs

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Announcement] French lawsuit against WMF won in court [ In reply to ]
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Michael Bimmler wrote:
>> On 11/2/07, Platonides <Platonides@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> OT: What's the meaning of CA on the favicon?
>>>
>> Conseil d'administration [=board] maybe? Might be that the favicon has
>> been taken from a WmFR-Board wiki or something. Just guessing...
>>
>>> http://www.lemonde.fr/web/depeches/0,14-0,39-33068926@7-50,0.html
>>> Article in Le Monde (in french)
>>>
> I note the last paragraph of the article:
>
> Si cette décision est encourageante pour les hébergeurs, elle ne
> constitue en rien une jurisprudence. D'autant que ces derniers mois,
> d'autres tribunaux ont rendu des décisions qui allaient en sens
> inverse en reconnaissant la responsabilité éditoriale des hébergeurs.
>
> How are these other cases distinguished from our case?
>
> Ec

It would actually be helpful if they cited their sources. Problem is we
have no idea which cases they refer to :-(

ant


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Announcement] French lawsuit against WMF won in court [ In reply to ]
They're speaking of the case of Dailymotion. They lost in July (the
17th iirc). It was slightly different, it wasn't about defamation but
author's right.

In the final statement, the judge as soon as an host is aware of an
illegal content on one of his website, he becomes responsible.

On 03/11/2007, Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > Michael Bimmler wrote:
> >> On 11/2/07, Platonides <Platonides@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> OT: What's the meaning of CA on the favicon?
> >>>
> >> Conseil d'administration [=board] maybe? Might be that the favicon has
> >> been taken from a WmFR-Board wiki or something. Just guessing...
> >>
> >>> http://www.lemonde.fr/web/depeches/0,14-0,39-33068926@7-50,0.html
> >>> Article in Le Monde (in french)
> >>>
> > I note the last paragraph of the article:
> >
> > Si cette décision est encourageante pour les hébergeurs, elle ne
> > constitue en rien une jurisprudence. D'autant que ces derniers mois,
> > d'autres tribunaux ont rendu des décisions qui allaient en sens
> > inverse en reconnaissant la responsabilité éditoriale des hébergeurs.
> >
> > How are these other cases distinguished from our case?
> >
> > Ec
>
> It would actually be helpful if they cited their sources. Problem is we
> have no idea which cases they refer to :-(
>
> ant
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
schiste
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l