User talk:MGodwin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:Info talk.png Mike Godwin, as a general rule, does not give legal advice through his Wikipedia user talk page. Please do not ask.


Messages left on talk page may not be found for some time. it's always best to send email in accordance with instructions on my user page.


Contents

[edit] 2005

[edit] Heya!

Heya Mike! Good to see you here, welcome, and all that stuff. The Wellites are taking over Wikipedia! Get the lawn chairs! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome aboard! — xaosflux Talk 15:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Welcome! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike and welcome! I actually saw Godwin's Law use correctly and it really worked to prove that the discussion was over. Have fun with you new job. -- Jreferee (Talk) 08:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the nice welcome. MikeGodwin 12:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

On JUL-07-2007, article Mike Godwin was linked from slashdot, a high-traffic website.
All prior and subsequent edits in the article are noted in its revision history.


[edit] Your user page

...reads like a resume. :) It's impressive but maybe it would benefit from some links? in particular to the EFF, to Godwin's Law, to DRM and a bunch more. Ya, it's a wiki but I'm a bit loath to edit other people's user pages since mine is locked down to prevent randoms from editing it. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll update it when I have some spare time, which isn't just this minute, Lar. Not that I'm disagreeing with you. MikeGodwin 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I boldly spruced it up. I hope you like it. ←BenB4 08:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

I also stated this on what I thought was your user talk page, but was your article talk page. Someday, when I get to be notable like you, I want my own article, too. :-) Best wishes, counsellor. Bearian 23:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

I see I get to be the first to shake your mop wielding hand. Here is what KillerChihuahua told me when I got mine:

Congratulations
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
  6. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.

Since you're a lawyer, I better mention that he released it under the GFDL, so I think I'm covered. Best of luck to you, and may you have at least one day when you never hear anything about short men with small moustaches. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like great advice to me! MikeGodwin 01:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Body of Authority

Since you are now giving us copyright law guidance in your official capacity, we need to keep track of it. So there's a new page here. Hopefully, this will save you from having to answer the same question 1000 times, and it will allow us to be more consistent in applying the "precedent" promulgated. Please edit or modify the contents of the page as necessary to keep us all on track. Thanks and thanks for your guidance! -- But|seriously|folks  00:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've given this a little thought, and I think that for now at least I don't want to turn my User Talk page into a general advice page. There's a good reason for this -- an answer that may be appropriate for one case may *seem* appropriate for another but may be distinguishable. I'd rather not risk having my User Talk page be used to give seemingly good but actually inaccurate advice, even accidentally. MikeGodwin 04:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just popping by.

Hi Mike, I'm one of the handful of intellectual property lawyers who can be found roaming the metaphorical halls of the project (lately I've been spending most of my time in the relative calm of Wiktionary). In any event, I thought I'd introduce myself, as I'm one of those folks who occasionally gets sucked into the legal debates that tend to arise. Lucky me, I'm a Florida lawyer too, so people who assume liability lies with the servers tap me for opinions (in fact a large portion of my real-world practice is defamation and right of publicity). I had a cordial interaction with Brad Patrick, and hope to have the same with you. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time for the WP's official copyright lawyer to weigh in

An administrator is deleting images he uploaded under the GFDL because he doesn't want them moved to commons. This is causing a bit of a hoohah on the Administrator's noticeboard/incidents here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BetacommandBot and commons

The admin states that he can revoke the license whenever he feels like, and makes a fairly involved legal argument here: User talk:Neil#Revocation of GFDL on images I have uploaded

This is a bit too much for mice without a law degree, but seems to fall squarely within your court. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, not whenever I feel like, only if no substantive or transformative derivative works have been produced based on the original contribution. Neil ム 19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Would an article that used an image constitute a substantive derivative work even if the original image hadn't been altered? 66.92.70.157 19:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I would say that the image was the element being used to substantively amend the article, and not the other way around. The image itself remains unaltered. Neil ム 19:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have explained that waiving copyright with a release such as the GFDL does not have to be a contract to effectively prevent future enforcement of the copyright on Neil's talk page. ←BenB4 20:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you read the entire statement, Ben. As GFDL is a licence, if no amendments or substantive changes have been carried out upon, or derivated content created from, the original submission, then by giving notice to the licencee, the original contributor can, technically, revoke the previously-applied licence from any unaltered contributions they wish. This argument becomes invalid as soon as any alterations take place, though, as the original contributor is then not the sole attributable owner of the content. Neil ム 20:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I am no lawyer, but the phrase "world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration" seems to mean that the license lasts forever. I don't see a provision for revoking the license, and I think that a license is like a contract in that unless you make a provision for canceling it, it is binding. But, as I said, I am not a lawyer, I look forward to Mike's interpretation. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've done some research on this. Under British law, a license is revocable at any time upon serving notice in writing (I'm not sure what that would entail.) Wikipedia's servers are governed by US law, which allows for license revocation "during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant" 17 USC 203(a)(3). ←BenB4 00:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
That's for copyright law, not GFDL licencing. Neil ム 22:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
First Neil, it says right at the top it says it deals with "license of copyright", secondly, a license is a set of terms regarding a copyright. GFDL information is copyrighted with specific terms. So the two are really the same thing. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Related to all this, could you please comment here? It seems important. Cheers, WilyD 14:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we will just have to use our layman's interpretation of the license pending some sort of response. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. As WP's unofficial copyright lawyer, yes there is a difference between a license and a copyright. Say I own a car, but I sign a contract which gives you permission to drive it around as you wish. The contract does not divest my ownership of the car, it merely gives you rights to it. If I give or sell ownership of the car to someone else, what they get is a car in which you still have usage rights (this actually happens with property all the time, see Easement). Uploading an image on Wikipedia gives Wikipedia (and all downstream users of Wikipedia) that right to use the image, and is an irrevocable gift of that right. It does not divest the copyright owner of ownership of the copyright, but does bar them from taking action against Wikipedia's use of the image. Once that upload button has been hit, the uploader has no more right to delete the image than any Wikipedian has to delete any image. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(general comment) I know that the specific situation of deleting self-contributed photos initially brought this conversation about, however, I think that when we discuss whether individual actions are acceptable or not, we should be talking in terms of the policies and guidelines of this site (no one has to be a lawyer to do this) rather than in terms of legalities (copyrights and licenses -which expertise as a lawyer is needed). That is to say the guidelines and policies (G&P) should be well within copyright laws and the time to discuss the law is when changes to the G&P are considered, not when individual actions are taken.
A case in point is our Fair Use policy, we don't have to discuss/know whether a photo meets Fair Use or copyright laws (pick a country), our policy is more restrictive, such that if our policy requirements are met (things any editor can discuss) an included image will automatically meet most, if not all, Fair Use laws anywhere (which lawyers can discuss). If current policy doesn't already address this image deletion situation, we should fix the policy, and not necessarily address the legality of the actions taken. Just my 2 cents. R. Baley 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Group logos in Iraqi insurgency

User:Videmus Omnia and User:Angr have removed Iraqi insurgent group logos here from the Iraqi insurgency article, claiming that we are not allowed ever to use non-free content in galleries. I disagree, pointing out that the instructions at WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use says that non-free image use in galleries is not allowed because it "normally fails the test for significance (criterion #8)."

The criterion in question states, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function."

I claim that including the gallery would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic because they allow readers to identify an insurgent group from its logo, a function that you would expect a comprehensive reference on the topic to serve. Omitting the images removes that very useful ability from the article, impacting readers' understanding, and there's no way to do it with text. As {{logo}} states, use of non-free logos for identification is explicitly permitted under the current policy.

There is a dispute about this at Wikipedia:Fair use review#Iraqi insurgency and Talk:Iraqi insurgency#Logo section. As I know you don't want to use your talk page for answering such questions, would you please reply at Talk:Iraqi insurgency#Logo section? Thank you for your help. ←BenB4 14:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL and BLP

We need legal input regarding the GFDL and how it interacts with the English Wikipedia's BLP policy. Of particular concern is largescale history deletion such as that at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Berry where the history now shows the first edit being Phil Sandifer even though the vast majority of content was not written by him. There is an ongoing discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Selective_deletions_and_the_GFDL . The consensus seems to be that legal advice is necessary. JoshuaZ 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medical advice guideline

An editor has raised a concern about Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice; see the talk page for details. It's a guideline that describes the types of medical questions that we avoid answering on the Reference Desks and a primer on how to recognize that a question seeks medical advice.

Your professional opinion would be appreciated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright on highway shields

I have created Wikipedia:Copyright on highway shields as a page to discuss and determine the copyright status of logos for highways, mainly toll roads. I would especially appreciate your input on the threshold of originality. Thank you. --NE2 03:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sudden realization

I just noticed you are the originator of Godwin's Law. Thanks for that one; you've no idea how many hours of entertainment I've had watching individuals (here and elsewhere on the internet) prove your adage correct.--Isotope23 talk 18:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tracking down copyright assignment of logos

Mike, we at English Wikiquote have been trying to settle some outstanding issues with Wikiquote-related logos, especially commons:Image:Ncwikiquote2trans.png, our official logo, created years ago by q:en:User:Neolux. The problem is that this (and other) logos have apparently inadequate licensing information by current standards (i.e., the ones we're using to justify actively deleting massive numbers of images on Wikipedia), and further do not make clear how the Wikimedia Foundation has the right to hold a copyright on them, as there is no clear statement of the assignment of rights to the Foundation from the creators. I am trying to eliminate the apparent hypocrisy in this situation.

Neolux, who is no longer active on Wikiquote, just passed word to me that he had assigned the rights to his logo to WMF, and that Brad Patrick and Jimmy Wales know about this. (I assume you would be holding this information now.) I would like to translate that into something we can cite on the image description page, so that the chain of copyright licensing is public and unambiguous. Could you point me in the right direction? Do you have some record that I can cite (e.g., "copyright assigned to WMF in private correspondence dated DD MMMM YYYY, on file [wherever]", or similar)? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could give you a better answer than this, but I am taking action generally to rationalize and inventory our logos and trademarks, and that's going to take a while. Yours is not the only question about ownership of logos. MikeGodwin 11:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Are U.S. state and local governments' public records protected?

Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Public records has another fascinating legal dispute comprised of non-lawyer editors trying to make sense of conflicting legal authorities. Please help! ←BenB4 18:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your law...

... was proven again: [1] (it's in Portuguese, but you can take a look at the last paragraph and get the point). Regards, PatríciaR msg 09:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

..Did anyone invoked this law against You? (calling you Nazi) SYSS Mouse 02:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Your law was used at DRV yesterday. It is very amazing to see it work. Would you consider adding a user subpage so we can add examples of its use in Wikipedia? -- Jreferee T/C 03:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That would be... silly? :-) Carcharoth 03:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Procedure for handling vandal edits containing terroristic threats

Good morning, Mr. Godwin. Based on a recent incident where a violent threat was made in a vandal edit to the Ewing High School (New Jersey) article, there has been some discussion as to whether there should be guidelines to coordinate Wikipedia volunteer's efforts in response to such incidents. You can find relevant discussions at WP:ANI#Terroristic threat made in school article and WP:VPP#Template for ANI emergencies.
My opinion is that our guidance on this should come from the Foundation, perhaps from you personally as its General Counsel. I realize numerous such empty threats must occur from time to time at the various projects, and thus our liability in this regard is extremely minimal, but the consequences of ignoring such a threat that ultimately comes to fruition could be quite severe. If you have the time to give an opinion, here or at WP:WPP, it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time, Satori Son 13:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Cat Inc Trademarks

It looks like you removed the entire Infobox, rather than just the trademarked image. Is there any reason I can't restore the rest of it, including the names of the chairman, the revenue data, etc? Thanks, <eleland/talkedits> 19:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to restore the Infobox. MikeGodwin 19:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DC meetup #3

Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removals of talk sections

I noticed you removed "by request" a bunch of sections of discussions that Geoeg and I were involved in. As long as you're at it, can you go ahead and remove or archive the whole lot? Maybe if we started over we'd do better. Or if you're just removing stuff that seems too controversial or something, how about taking out his rants against me? Dicklyon 01:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I just pitch in as an admin who has been watching the Geoeg situation? He has taken your removal as permission to remove many other discussions of his behaviour, including an arbitration request which has not yet been rejected by the Arbitrators or removed by the clerks. I think such removals should best be done by them rather than by the user whose behaviour is under examination. Sam Blacketer 14:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
He has also removed the COI notice about him, citing Mikegodwin approval. And laughed at us about it. Dicklyon 15:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Mike please can you confirm whether you authorised the blanking of sections of the RFA page and archives from admin noticeboards? This seems pretty radical and I would like to understand the reasoning as this appears to be a new policy. Its a long standing convention that you don't remove comments from other users and I'm minded to block Geoeg for this if it hasn't been authorised. Spartaz Humbug! 19:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Spartaz. While I could imagine reasons for removing some of the material you removed, some clarification here would be greatly appreciated. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I slept on this but I simply can't see how your agreeing to remove some talk pages can be extended to Geoeg claiming your approval for the removal of a RFAR by the subject of the request. This user has been in the last chance saloon for some time and the disruption that they bring is no longer justified by their very limited contributions. I have therefore blocked them indefinitely. Of course, if I have misinterpreted your intent, you are welcome to reverse me. Spartaz Humbug! 09:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Folks, I hope you will be patient with me for not always being able to explain every detail of a particular editorial choice arising out of a dispute. I'm trying not to fuel the fires, but I can't always tell you why a particular choice was made, for legal reasons. And, yes, I know that my edits don't always solve the particular problem, but I hope they sometimes reduce the problems. MikeGodwin 04:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logos fair use question

Over at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Logo inclusion in football club season infoboxes there's a Wikipedia editorship debate over whether such use of logos is fair use or not (and, though I don't think it was raised in such terms, there's also the trademark issue; logos are legal chimeras, after all). I've rather WP:BOLDly tagged that entire discussion with {{Stuck}}, because I do not believe it can be resolved other than via WP:OFFICE, i.e. you. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Stanton, it seems clear to me that fair use doctrine applies in these cases, but sometimes we pull logos anyway because we have to pick our battles. I'm not the only WP:OFFICE person, as I think you know -- if this is turning into a problem, send me e-mail. MikeGodwin 05:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lubbers and BLP Block

Hi Mike: I have written an explanation on the Lubbers Disc page. --Joel Mc 17:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added material and asked what's happening? on Lubbers discussion page.--Joel Mc (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user page

Hiya Mike!

Someone mentioned the user page way above, in July. Is it possible to cut your user page back from a resume, to a regular user page, maybe refocusing it on your activities for the foundation and on the wiki, and other important information a user here looking up your page might want to know about your role here? Jimmy Wales' page is a good example of how this can be done!

Many thanks, and let me know if anything needs discussing or you need a hand - I'm sure many people will be glad to help!

Best,

FT2 (Talk | email) 01:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi, FT2. I think I'm okay with my User page as it is. My role as general counsel is already mentioned in the Wikipedia entry about me, and on the Wikimedia.org site. Like other users, I am comfortable being nonstandard in how I present myself on my User page. MikeGodwin (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "expressed and justified claim"

Requiring an expressed and justified claim for fair use contributes to the erosion of fair use. I thought, I was sure in fact, that you of all people would be for strong fair use, free from any mystic incantations necessary to use it. Sigh! 68.40.34.93 (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm for strong fair use, free from any mystic incantations to use it. But I'm probably missing your point here. MikeGodwin (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess that refers to this statement by Cary Bass that you said we either need permission or an "expressed" fair use justification to use non-free content. That is currently the norm here on Wikipedia; it predates your statement, has always been controversial, and even though it's technically a "guideline," it is treated as the strictest policy and is the only guideline enforced by bots. Wikipedia is so big now that this requirement is having an impact in the real world: people look at Wikipedia and figure what we are doing is the right thing, and it isn't. It impacts expectations of rights holders who otherwise wouldn't bother fair-users with pressure and litigation. If you would mention at WT:NFC that in fact a written justification is not actually needed for fair use, please, it would do a world of good. MilesAgain (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Releasing IP addresses of registered users: the Video Professor incident

This issue was discussed at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 31#Wikipedia surrendering users' info without a fight. It was stated there that it was not an appropriate discussion forum for the topic of how hard the Foundation should and did fight to prevent revealing the IP addresses of registered users to parties who had been criticized in a Wikipedia article and who subpoenaed the user information. I have started a discussion at the Village Pump policy page at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)# Releasing IP addresses of registered users: the Video Professor incident. Two other websites successfully avoided releasing the subpoenaed information. As legal counsel for Wikipedia, the reported non-response to the initial subponea and the later release to the aggrieved party of the IP address of an editor seem to be related to your role. Your comments are welcome. Thanks. Edison (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to this query on Village Pump. MikeGodwin (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Wikia Annex a conflict of interest?

Would you please take some time to read this thread and respond at the Village Pump discussion that is referenced on Jimbo's talk page? Several of us have the opinion that Wikia Annex has crossed a line that overtly solicits content and labor from the Wikipedia community that directly benefits the shareholders of Wikia, several of whom are directing the Wikimedia Foundation in key ways. - John Russ Finley (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Licensing images as GFDL 1.2only

Hi Mike,

at the moment, there's a controversy over at the German Wikipedia about users who license their images as GFDL version 1.2 only (as opposed to the standard GFDL "Version 1.2 or any later version"). Some argue, that the "or any later version" part may not be valid according to German laws because nobody knows how the license text will change in future versions. But there are already plans to ask a German lawyer to look into that, so that's not really the issue I want to talk about.

In the past, some users (who uploaded a huge amount of good pictures) chose to license their works as GFDL because such images can be used in Wikipedia, but are rather difficult (almost impossible) to use in magazines, on posters, etc.. due to requirements such as the need to print the whole license text. However after the recent discussion concerning future versions of the license that would make it compatible to a CC license, it seems those users panicked a bit - as this would mean that their images become much easier to use commercially. So they chose to create a license template that only includes the GFDL version 1.2 (same as {{GFDL 1.2}}), to prevent most commercial usage of their images in the future.

Other users (including myself) think that using such a license to prevent the easy use of free Wikipedia content by others (or trying to make it as difficult as possible) is not in line with one of the main ideas of Wikipedia - creating free contents for everybody to use. Additionally, someone pointed out that the GFDL license text only mentions two licensing options: a) GFDL Version x "or any later version" and b) "GFDL" without a version number.

So, do you or the Foundation have any opinion about such a license template? --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I realize this is a controversial subject for many, and I don't want to wade into the minutiae of that debate here. I will say that there are ongoing efforts among FSF, Creative Commons, and the Foundation to try to harmonize licensing conventions in ways that both maximize the usability and maintain the propagation of free licensing of content. The fact that these three stakeholders are involved in this discussion should suggest that lots of points of view are being represented, and you also may be sure that any proposed harmonization will be submitted to the affected communities for discussion as well. Human beings being what they are, it is unlikely that any outcome will escape criticism, but I'm generally pretty hopeful about this effort. MikeGodwin (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] subst: uw-ad1

I realize you're the legal counsel here - however - your resume on the userpage is not in keeping with policy. WP:NOT#WEBSPACE:
Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your resume', please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration
Don't worry - I won't mess with it - just a heads up KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 16:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike's resume is "information relevant to working on the encyclopedia" because it shows that he works for the Foundation. MilesAgain (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You might want to give WP:UP a read through--the user space is designed to give other editors a bit of information about who they're dealing with, and since Mike is the legal counsel of the Foundation (and will thus be called upon for legal matters), his resume is certainly in line with this. I have some additional comments and questions, but I'll post them on your talk page rather than clutter up Mike's. --jonny-mt 01:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me. Did you guys read WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. The resume is not allowed and

there are other ways to show he's general counsel over here, that keep with the rules of Wikipedia. (Note - This isn't intented to have a nasty tone - rather an incredulous one! ). The friendly alien formerly known as Kosh The Vorlon, from the Vorlon home world, in the Tarus constellation, now currently residing beyond the rim, with Capt. Sheridan! —Preceding comment was added at 01:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly. It's entirely appropriate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT#WEBSPACE notes that "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration" (emphasis in the original), a sentiment reflected in WP:UP. A number of active users ("active" being the key word) have CVs or resume-like information on their personal pages, but they are allowed by the community insofar as this information is used to highlight their areas of knowledge and expertise, which in turn is very helpful when considering their work on the project. If you need more verification that this is indeed the current consensus, I encourage you to take a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KeyStroke/Subpage 1 for an example of this consensus in action. You are tilting at windmills here, and so rather than get more worked up I suggest you step back and consider the possibility that our arguments are sound. --jonny-mt 03:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback

As I described in the mail I sent you, we would like your feedback at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#BusinessWeek's Terms of Use. Thanks in advance. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I apologise in advance but regarding coverage of fictional universes

This is regarding the Seinfeld and Twin Peaks cases mentioned here [2]. I really hate to ask, and I'm trying to find a way to frame this which doesn't mean you have to give legal advice or answer in a way that could be misinterpreted. Does the community need to look at the way it covers fictional universes, like how much detail it goes into etc. If you can't answer, that's fair enough. Actually it's probably best if you don't, thinking about it, because it might well be misinterpreted. Hmm. Should the community limit its coverage in light of the above, is that a better way of phrasing it? Or should the community discuss limiting its coverage in light of the above? Or, if we did discuss it are their things to bear in mind? Damn, this is hard. I'll leave it there. Like I say, if you can't answer that is fair enough, and I'm sorry to have troubled you, it is just that a number of people have pointed me here to the point that I probably have to come here, if you see what I mean. Hiding T 12:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

From a legal standpoint, I see no reason for contributors to worry about coverage of fictional universes, so long as relevant provisions of copyright law, trademark law, etc., are followed. MikeGodwin (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Hiding T 11:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DC Meetup on May 17th

Your help is needed in planning Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4! Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Harder for me to play a role in DC meetups now that I work in San Francisco. MikeGodwin (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:WebHamster

It needs to be brought to your attention that User:WebHamster is using his userpage to host what appears to be child pornography. Despite admins removing the pictures he seems determined to edit war them back in as per here, here, and here. His original image was removed via this AN/I discussion and he has since updated his page with yet another child porn image, the one which is now currently being hosted by wikipedia. Please note that like the previous picture, the current image being hosted has no information declaring that the subject is over 18 years of age, and is found in no other part of the encyclopedia. Given that this user is immune to admin decisions or removals, and in his defense uses comments like this this this, I believe User:WebHamster must be removed from the project immediately, for the integrity of the encyclopedia. Prester John (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the imagery is child pornography, but if you think I'm wrong about this, properly you should report the user to the FBI. They do forensic analysis of photography all the time. MikeGodwin (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

You'd make a great attorney general.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 20:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not; while he, supra, takes a casual attitude with respect to pornography, a good AG insists on hiding with drapes anything more sexual than a potted plant. At the very least, though, I think a commitment to nominate Goodwin for AG might attract some support (including, quite probably, mine) for your presidential campaign. Joe 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Issue

Ashley Alexandra Dupré's attorney has issued a letter to the news media (more details here) disputing fair use of her photos. We currently have one of these photos uploaded at Image:New York Post Cover.jpg. Should it be deleted? Nesodak (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com

Just for your information:

The Ninth Circuit made a potentially big decision yesterday ... that could significantly increase website companies’ liability for content posted by their users ...

—Publius, Cert the 9th Circuit Before It Kills Again

Bovlb (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You have been contacted

I have been told by Mrs.EasterBunny that she sent you proof (in confidence) with people's driving licenses to prove that several people are unique and not socks. You are mentioned here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=203695745&oldid=203694086 Thank you. 165.21.155.109 (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just a CMA

Hi, I'm just covering myself here, no need to reply unless the mood strikes you. You and I exchanged emails today, which I posted verbatim (after the initial formalities) here. As I mentioned, the main point was to make sure that we weren't hurting Wikipedia in any way by removing Jimbo's WP:BLP quote, and also to deflect any possible uninformed "legal opinions" when we admit to WP:VPP what we did :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attribution to photographers in image captions

There are several discussions underway on whether Wikipedia should make it common practice to provide attribution to authors of a photograph in its caption. I spend a lot of time asking Flickr users to relicense work for use on the site, and have been asked by some of them to include their name in the caption area. These are people who appear to be confused about having to click on the image to find the credits. I imagine they aren't the only users who never click on an image while reading an article. Would it place us on stronger legal footing to attribute works in the caption as well that are licensed under a Creative Commons license? Thanks for your time. (Mind meal (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

Incidentally, here is the current discussion: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Photograph_attribution_in_image_captions. (Mind meal (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Accounts on Commons

I hope you don't consider this impertinent or otherwise inappropriate... but could you please confirm here using your account here at the English Wikipedia which of the two accounts on Commons (commons:User:MikeGodwin and commons:User:MGodwin) is you? If both are you, it's ok, but if not, there'd be an impostor at Commons. Wouldn't be the first time something like this happened... Sorry if you feel I'm being dense about this; we'd just like to be sure we're actually talking with whom we think we're talking with. Regards, Lupo 10:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Both are me. I've recently begun trying to standardize on MGodwin for all projects except Wikipedia itself. MikeGodwin (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. That's a relief. Lupo 21:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caterpillar Inc. logo

Is there any specific reason why you removed the Caterpillar Inc. logo in the past? I was just wondering, since I recently created an SVG version for the page, but I was directed to you after you had removed there logo from the page previous to me adding the SVG version. CoolKid1993 (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)