LegalPolicy/meeting20090929

From openmichigan

Revision as of 13:30, 20 October 2011 (edit) Jczetta (Talk) ← Older edit

Current revision (14:13, 22 July 2015) (edit) (undo) Bdr (Talk | contribs) m (1 revision)

---

Current revision

Contents 1 Agenda 2 Supplemental Info 2.1 Draft questions for Wikimedia Foundation's GC 3 Notes

[edit] Agenda

• Disclaimer and ToU review
• Discuss merits/legal attractiveness of the wikimedia model (tagging everything with its copyright status)
  • We discussed in the previous meeting talking with Wikimedia Foundation: Greg has contact info for the GC from the Wikimedia Foundation (Mike Godwin, of Godwin's Law fame)
  • What questions do we want to ask? (See below for some draft questions)
• Other items?

[edit] Supplemental Info

• Current draft of our Citation Policy:
  • http://open.umich.edu/wiki/CitationPolicy

• Wikimedia's "Public Domain - Ineligible" tag
  • http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-ineligible

[edit] Draft questions for Wikimedia Foundation's GC

Feel free to add more

• How did the PD-ineligible tag come about, from the community or otherwise? (community is my guess, it is wikimedia)
• What was the foundation's reaction to the tag, if any?
• As the tag is still in use, has the foundation made any special considerations around it (keeping an eye on the contributions with the tag, coming to an internal agreement wrt a risk assessment, etc)?
• How would the foundation react to Open.Michigan uploading hundreds of PD-ineligible images to commons.wikimedia.org? How would the community react?
• Our images will mostly be ineligible due to very low creative expression/authorship reasoning, should that be mentioned in the file description or even create a new specific PD-ineligible tag (such as the PD-shape, PD-chem options already available).
  • One possibility would be a PD-histology tag for histology images.
• How have content holders reacted to the PD-ineligible tag? For example, we will post x-rays that very well may have copyright notices from Elsevier. Do they respect Elsevier's claim of copyright until proven otherwise?

[edit] Notes