|
News, opinion and good humor
about the Mar Vista, Westdale and North Westdale neighborhoods
of Los Angeles, California
The Westmar Sun
(You have to have trust . . .)
|
 |
| Home |
Search |
Latest News |
Education, Culture and the Arts |
| Airport |
Opinion |
Palms–Village Sun |
Letters |
• |
| Renters |
Businesses |
Dining Out |
Rusty |
Year One |
| Archives of The Westmar Sun as indexed by Google |
|
|
NO RIGHTS RESERVED
Copyright proposal defeated, 11-2 |
A motion by Webmaster Bill Scheding of the Mar Vista Community Council that would have authorized him to add "Copyright 2004 The City of Los Angeles, 'All Rights Reserved' " to the MVCC Web site pages was defeated by an 11-2 vote of the Board of Directors on Feb. 10, 2004.
He said the wording was suggested to him by a member of the city attorney's office.
Scheding had been placing a copyright notice by the Mar Vista Community Council on all the Web site pages and many other documents that he produced. He also placed one of the new City of Los Angeles copyright statements on a Web page even before he asked for authorization from the Board of Directors [see graphic below].
The vote was taken after Scheding and Director Amanda Seward engaged in a spirited exchange over details of copyright law, which ended only when Seward told him in no uncertain terms, "I'm a copyright attorney!"
Scheding prefaced his motion [text below] with this explanation:
|
“In an effort to keep our information in a single copy and not have multiple copies floating around the world, we have used the copyright mechanism so that there’s one set of minutes that’s produced by the secretary, and that is the one true copy of the minutes. . . . We would prefer that that be the only copy.”
“We have no intention of limiting the copies; if you want a copy of anything you can have it. But we want to be sure that things are not copied without of our knowledge, so that we can make sure that things are kept consistent: Simply minutes and agendas, and things like that, as well as intellectual property that we’ve generated.”
He said he talked to a man in the city attorney’s office who said the Mar Vista Community Council cannot claim its own copyright but should use that of the City of Los Angeles, since the council is a certified agency of the city.
Both Scheding and Chair Tom Ponton have said that the Board of Directors authorized the former to claim copyright for the council, although The Sun has been unable to find any record of the authorization in the minutes posted on the MVCC Web site.
|
|
'Minutes are a public record'
|
|
George Garrigues, the owner and editor of The Westmar Sun, made a statement decrying Scheding’s motion [text below]. The Sun regularly reprints the Council’s minutes, with minor editing and the addition of an index. Garrigues said he believed the motion was aimed directly at him and his Web site.
Scheding has attempted by e-mails to have Garrigues’s Web site removed from the Internet, but the owner of the hosting service used by The Sun has refused to do so, citing federal law. [See the e-mails here.]
The first exchange between Scheding and Seward took place when Scheding stated that if anybody wants to reproduce a copyrighted statement, then he has to “to take whole thing and leave the copyright symbol on it.”
Seward broke in: “I don’t think the city attorney said that, because that’s not true; that’s not what copyright law is.”
Certain things that are copyrighted, she said, “you cannot copy . . . without permission of the copyright owner.”
But "If those incorrect versions get out there, they
|
will be confusing,” Scheding said. “There’s no reason why another Web site . . . just couldn’t point to our minutes.”
Scheding warned about the possibility of others’ using MVCC minutes that haven’t been corrected and approved by the Board of Directors.
Director Evelyn Drevecky responded: “I have a problem with this . . . . Minutes are a public record. . . Once it’s out in the public domain, it’s public knowledge. I don’t see where that kind of information can be copyrighted.”
Director Rob Kadota urged defeat of the motion.
“Regardless of whether we can copyright, I would encourage the board not to,” he said. “I think the spirit of the Brown Act [a state law regulating public meetings] is opening, is transparency. Any kind of copyright is a kind of closing process.
“Frankly, our stuff isn’t that important. [Laughter and applause from the spectators.] . . . It helps to serve our constituents.
“I think there are a few things that are worth trade-marking, you know, a logo and those kinds of things, but in terms of our information. If they get it wrong, we’ll ask them to correct it . . .”
|
|
' . . . guess what? Sometimes it's very important'
|
|
Director Ken Alpern, who had seconded Scheding’s motion, said:
“Whether this motion passes or not, I think the important thing is to emphasize that Bill is not trying to promote restrictions in any way, shape or form.
“What he’s trying to do is to promote assurance that if we are to be quoted in the newspaper — and I’ve seen this blow up: Somebody gets misquoted. Wait until the next set of elections [in March]; if not next month, then maybe next year — wait until you see people try to take things out of context.
“Hell, if you get interviewed by the media you better make damn sure that every single word is right
|
because they take a snippet of it or take it out of context; you’ve been misquoted a hundred and eighty degrees from what you were trying to say.
“So in terms of it seeming banal and not important, guess what? Sometimes it’s very important, and so whether or not this motion passes, I really do want the city of L.A. attorney to make [inaudible] not only people like Amanda [Seward], who’s legally savvy, much more than the rest of us, but for all of us, to make sure that we have some protection against being misquoted. No one in this room ---
Scheding: “Copyright doesn’t protect us from being misquoted. . . . “
|
|
'All right, all right, let's settle down'
|
|
Seward [about a comment by Scheding]: “I want to clarify that somewhat. I didn’t talk to the city attorney, and I want to, but what it had to mean is, for example, if someone does an article on the history of Mar Vista, and we have it on our Web site, that is subject to copyright protection, but there are some things on the Web site that are public records that should be freely copied or can be freely copied. I don’t believe that we could claim copyright protection in them.
“But you should have on your Web site or your newsletter a copyright notice that would cover things that are subject to copyright; for example, like that history of Mar Vista to prevent someone from taking all of our history notices or columns and making it into their own book. . . .
Scheding: “So let me ask you a couple of questions. You have some piece of intellectual property, and let’s say I copy a hundred percent and that’s not right. If I copy 90 percent is that right? Copyright law is fairly clear on this; there’s a term called ‘fair use,’ and ‘fair use’ means you can excerpt it, but only a certain amount of it . . .
Director Evelyn Drevecky: “I’ve written books . . . and people have quoted from the papers I’ve written, or the chapters I’ve written . . . “
Seward: “All I’m saying is I don’t think we should vote in favor of this until we have consulted with the
|
city attorney; the city attorney needs to come here, write a memo, or there needs to be more of us to go and meet with him and get a definitive answer and talk about all the various subjects that are coming up.”
Scheding [slowly and forcefully]: “It comes -- from the word -- of his mouth. He said, we need a copyright --”
Seward [heatedly]: “Yes, but he could not have meant to tell -- I know he didn’t [inaudible] . . .”
Chair Tom Ponton: “Why don’t we call the question?"
Voice from the audience: “Why not table it?”
[Several people talking at once.]
Seward [voice rising]: “I know; I’m a copyright lawyer.”
Scheding: “You’re a copyright lawyer?”
Seward: “Yes!”
[Laughter and applause from the audience.]
Ponton: “All right, all right, let’s settle down; it’s getting kind of late.”
The vote was taken, and the motion lost, 11-2.
|
Note: In the article above, an ellipsis (three dots) indicates an omission, usually because the voices on the recording tape were inaudible.
|
•
Motion on copyright submitted to the Board of Directors,
Mar Vista Community Council |
|
I move that the board authorize the current webmaster to change or add the appropriate legend suggested by the City Attorney to the website pages. Namely:
(Copyright symbol) 2004 The City of Los Angeles. "All Rights Reserved."
This policy shall become effective immediately.
|
•
| Statement by George Garrigues, owner and editor of The Westmar Sun |
|
My name is George Garrigues. I am the owner and editor of a news and opinion Web site that I call The Westmar Sun. You can find that site at www.WestmarSun.info, and there are some copies on that table back there.
I consider this motion to be a direct attack on my site, because I’m the only person to my knowledge who is bothering to troll the minutes of the Mar Vista Community Council, to index them and to present them in a readable form on the Internet for all to see.
I consider this motion to be a direct attack upon the freedom to report and to criticize.
I consider this motion to be a direct attack upon the First Amendment, as applied to the states by the 14th Amendment.
The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make NO LAW abridging the freedom of the press.”
|
This board, as an agency of the city, is bound by that provision.
I consider this motion to be a direct attack upon each one of us.
The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, states:
"The Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
If anybody can tell me how this motion promotes the progress of science and useful arts, I will be glad to buy them a coffee at the Mar Vista Bowl.
It doesn’t say anything about keeping public records from being disseminated to the public.
You can look inside your hearts and ask yourself, “Is this opening up the process, or chilling the process, of a free people?” I think the answer will be obvious
|
•
Fragment of MVCC Board agenda
for Feb. 10, 2004 |
 |
|
The copyright legend at the bottom of the MVCC Board of Directors agenda for Feb. 10.
|
•
AMAZING EXCHANGE OF E-MAIL ABOUT COPYRIGHT OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
Community officer writes directly to The Sun's Web host
(Nov. 12-Dec. 8, 2003) |
Why isn't The Sun using the names of the two directors at this time? It's not our intention to embarrass anybody, especially those who are giving of their time and effort to make Mar Vista and the Westdales a better place to live. It's always a shock to see your name in a place where you didn't expect it.
Nevertheless, the public has a right to know what their representatives are up to. We shall just call these people Director X and Director Y.
|
| Just in case you were wondering, e-mails by public officials are public records, defined as “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics,” and here is the link to back it up. |
Not authorized copies of the MVCC information
(To the editor)
I was very impressed with your Web site. It is very well organized, clear and very informative. Thank you for your effort thus far and best wishes in you new endeavor.
However, I noticed that you have reproduced minutes and other portions of the MVCC copyrighted material on your web site. As we have discussed, and the City Attorney has confirmed, MVCC material is legally protected by the US Copyright Laws.
These are not authorized copies of the MVCC information.
Why don't you just create a link to the main site for the information that you want to reference?
If you need the individual links, please let me know. I will be happy to assist you.
That way if there are any changes or corrections, there will be no confusion.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent matter.
Director X
(Nov. 12, 2003, 11:33 a.m.)
|
Not granted permission to put copyrighted material on site
(To the editor)
Please be advised that we have not granted permission for you to put our copyrighted material on your Web site. If you wish to provide a link to our documents, you may speak to our Webmaster, Bill Scheding about arranging that.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Director Y
(Nov. 24, 2003, 12:44 p.m.)
|
Who granted authority to claim a copyright on Board minutes?
(To Directors X and Y)
The Westmar Sun believes that public records belong to the public and not to any government bureaucrat who happens to have temporary custody of them.
It wishes to respond to this letter and the one just below by asking the following questions:
Who allegedly owns the copyright? The copyright notice on the Mar Vista Community Council pages says the material is copyrighted by the "Mar Vista Community Council." Since the Community Council is an agency of the city government, is the copyright then owned by the City of Los Angeles? What authorization does the present administration of the Mar Vista Community Council possess to copyright a public record on behalf of the city of Los Angeles?
The Sun is aware of the fact that "it is not clear how to reconcile the ability to copyright information with state open records laws. The potential conflict between copyright and open records laws has not been squarely addressed, nor has the potential conflict between copyright and the First Amendment." [Center for Democracy and Technology: Public Records: Access, Privacy, and Public Policy A Discussion Paper Prepared by Robert Gellman, 1995. Source: http://www.cdt.org/privacy/pubrecs/pubrec.html. [No longer valid.]
Naturally, The Sun will obey any lawful order of a court issued in this matter.
George Garrigues
(Nov. 24, 2003, 6:53 p.m.; Garrigues is editor of The Westmar Sun)
|
|
Why not use just a link to the MVCC site?
(To the editor)
So why not just use a link and avoid any possible conflict?
Director X
(Nov. 13, 12:03 p.m.)
|
|
We have to agree to disagree
(To Director X)
The answer is that I want the Westmar Sun site to be as complete as possible, that I am adding a contents list to each page of minutes, that I am changing some of the wording to conform to a common style (for example, "Web site" instead of "Web site,") it forces me to read all the minutes so I can comprehend what has been going on since the MVCC was certified, and , last, I believe the presentation on the Westmar Sun site aids the reader in HIS comprehension of the issues.
I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this. You can keep adding the copyright notice, and I will keep ignoring it. By the way, my pages are not copyrighted.
George Garrigues
(Nov. 18, 11:53 p.m.)
|
Confusion over 'right to access' vs. 'unauthorized reproduction'
(To the editor)
I think you're confusing the "right to access and read public records", with the "unauthorized reproduction and distribution of the work of another author". There's a difference.
Director Y
(Nov. 24, 2003, 8:16 p.m.)
|
Pleased about link to The Westmar Sun
(To Director X)
. . . thanks for the link to The Westmar Sun on . . . [your] site. I was surprised and pleased, considering our disagreement over copyright. . . .
George Garrigues
(Nov. 26, 2003, 9:31 a.m.)
|
|
Disagreement will be settled by the City Attorney
(To the editor)
The disagreement over copyright will be settled by the City Attorney and my placing your Web site's link on our Web site is a community service. I believe you are doing a fine job on your site; but the copyrighted material must come off.
Director X
(Nov. 27, 2003, 11:07 a.m.)
|
A query about Web host's copyright policies
(To the owner of the company that hosts The Westmar Sun's Web pages; he is a Culver City businessman.)
What is your policy for sites that you host that have put up copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission?
Director X
(Nov. 26, 2003, 8:27 a.m.) |
Huh?
(To Director X)
Well it all depends. Why don't you tell me which site, and what material you are referring to?
The Web site host
(Nov. 27, 2003, time unknown)
|
You don't have a policy?
(To the Web site host)
I guess that means you don't have a policy? Who is your service provider?
Director X
(Nov. 27, 2003, 11:27 a.m.) |
Work it out with the Web site owner
(To Director X)
The reason that "it all depends" is because this is a privately-owned service, and I am the owner so I don't need a policy to make a decision on a certain Web site. Also, I own quite a few Web sites that are mock-ups or experiments, which use photos that I found on Usenet, freefoto.com and that sort of Web site. If it involves one of those then I'll simply delete
the photo.
But since I don't know what you're referring to, then I can't tell you the specific policy that would refer to that situation.
As for my service provider, that's sort of an odd question, since it's public information. If you are having trouble finding it, you may need to hire a "web engineer" to help you with that. But I think you will find me to be more cooperative than any of my service providers.
So anyway, if you can let me know what you're referring to, then I can give you details on the relevant policy. Otherwise, my suggestion is that you work it out with the Web site owner.
The Web site host
(Nov. 27 or 28, 2003, time unknown) |
Remove copyrighted material from a site?
(To the Web site host)
I guess my question is this. If I own a copyright to material that one of your hosted sites has put up without my permission will you require then hosted site to remove the material for their site?
Director X
(Nov. 28, 5:51 a.m. |
It appears that there is no issue
(To Director X)
I checked the server and I cannot find any material that belongs to you, so it appears that there is no issue.
The Web site host
(Nov. 30 or Dec. 1, time unknown) |
Comparison of material from the two Web sites
(To the Web site host)
Very interesting, how did you identify our material? What if the copyright statement was removed (which it has been). Please view this page: (which I believe you host): http://www.westmarsun.info/MVMinutes/MVMinutes.html.
Click on "Aug 8/12" which will take you to here: http://www.westmarsun.info/MVMinutes/MVMinutes.03.08.html.
In the lower portion of the screen is a copy of our copyrighted minutes:
Excerpt:
August 12, 2003 7:00 pm
Mar Vista Park Auditorium
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 by Tom Ponton, Chair. Bill Scheding led everyone in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
The first order of business was to call roll to determine that a quorum was in attendance. The following members of the board were present or arrived shortly thereafter: Ken Alpern, Barbara Corry, Evelyn Dravecky, Bryan Gordon, Amy Lawrence, Tony Navarro, Tom Ponton, Maritza Przekop, Bill Scheding, Amanda Seward, Andy Shrader, and Christine Taylor."
...
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Amy Lawrence on August 17, 2003
-------
No copyright statement!
>
You will notice the identical information on our Mar Vista Community Council web site at:
http://marvistacc.org/minutes/MVCC/2003/Aug.12.2003.html
Excerpt:
Mar Vista Community Council
August 12, 2003 Board Meeting
Draft Minutes
August 12, 2003 7:00 pm
Mar Vista Park Auditorium
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 by Tom Ponton, Chair. Bill Scheding led everyone in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
The first order of business was to call roll to determine that a quorum was in attendance. The following members of the board were present or arrived shortly thereafter: Ken Alpern, Barbara Corry, Evelyn Dravecky, Bryan Gordon, Amy Lawrence, Tony Navarro, Tom Ponton, Maritza Przekop, Bill Scheding, Amanda Seward, Andy Shrader, and Christine Taylor.
At the bottom, you can see a clear statement of our rights and intentions.
This page is our official, copyrighted, and confirmed by the Los Angeles City Attorney, Council Meeting Minutes.
We are not trying to hide them or not make them public. However, we do require that there be only one copy, stored on our Web site. Other copies lead to confusion and make it impossible for us to make corrections. We have communicated this to the web site operator:
George Garrigues, editor, The Westmar Sun, [street address excised by the editor], and he does not respect or agree with our intellectual property rights.
The site that you are hosting is a clear and blatant violation of our intellectual property rights, and we ask that all information to which we legally own a copyright be removed from your hosting service and backup copies, if any, be destroyed.
Further, we request that you inform the Web site owner that you are required to remove this information in compliance with the laws of the United States and that further violations will not be tolerated.
We have informed Mr. Garrigues that he may put a link to our copyrighted pages on his site if he likes; but not to copy or copy and modify our intellectual property. This is only one of many examples or our material I have found on this Web site which are in violation of our rights.
It might be a good idea to place your policy on copyright infringement on your site as well.
Thank you for your cooperation in this urgent matter.
Director X
(Dec. 1, 1:44 p.m.)
|
Not in any position to decide who owns this material
(To Director X)
The page to which you refer does exist on a server that I control. It is not a shared server. The Web site developer is someone other than myself. I made no contributions to this site and so I am unfamiliar with the content hosted there.
I visited the US Copyright Office's Web site, and found that my responsibility is fairly limited in this matter. I am only required to provide contact information where I can be sent a decision, if you choose to take legal action against the Web site owner. The information is clearly posted on my Web site, and I have included it below as well.
Please understand that I am in no position to decide who owns this material, and whether or not it is a violation of US Copyright Law. If you visit the Copyright office's Web site, you can get plenty of information on how to properly go about protecting your rights: http://www.copyright.gov/ .
Obviously I am not going to argue with a decision issued by a court of law, or by the Copyright Office. If you get a decision in this or any copyright matter, simply send me a copy: [Name and address of the Web host excised by the editor].
When you send legal proof of a decision, I will make sure that the material is removed from my server.
This e-mail is CC the Administrative Contact of the Web site to which you refer.
The Web site host
(Dec. 3, 5:13 p.m.)
|
Message of thanks
(To the Web site host)
Thanks very much for this exchange of messages. You've been very helpful.
George Garrigues
(Dec. 3, 7:55 p.m.) |
Responsibility in the matter
(To the Web site host)
Are you saying that you do not host this site? [Here was pasted a copy of the 'WhoIs?' information, which includes names, addresses and phone numbers, and which one can easily get from the Web.]
If you don't host it, I'm sorry to have bothered you.
If you do host the site, then you have some responsibility in the matter.
Director X
(Dec. 3, 5:36 p.m.)
|
Clarification
(To Director X)
OK, let me clarify that: It is a site that I host.
The Web site host
(Dec. 3, 5:40 p.m.)
|
Disbelief
(To the Web site host)
This whole exchange of messages leaves me shaking my head in disbelief!
George Garrigues
(Dec. 3, 8:02 p.m.) |
|
'This is my private system'
(To the editor)
I seriously doubt that this will be the end of it.
Just to clarify my position - if this material is indeed a violation of Copyright law, please remove it. The specific page in question is: http://www.westmarsun.info/MVMinutes/MVMinutes.03.08.html However, the same applies to other materials on your site(s).
On the other hand, I am not going to remove your pages simply because an anonymous e-mail sender asked me to do that.
I am in no position to decide who is correct. I have no idea who originally authored it, or if it is covered by "fair use" limitations. So I'm leaving it up to you to make that decision.
But please keep one thing in mind — this is my private system. I am leasing an entire server from Alabanza because I have alot of Web sites. Subscription fees from users like yourself help me offset the monthly fee. I don't mind sharing my server because there's plenty of room, and it reduces my hosting costs. Your benefit is that this is not a typical shared-hosting system with 500-1,000 sites per server. Instead, there are around 100 and because I am primarily interested in performance, I will never overload this server.
So my primary interest is in my Web sites, not local politics. I strongly suspect that this has little to do with Web site material and is probably an extesion of some other personal dispute between this person and yourself.
Anyway, if I hear anything else about this, I will inform you.
The Web site host
(Dec. 3, 5:40 p.m.)
|
|
Not smiling any more
(To the Web site host)
Thanks, . . . for the timely warning. I won't let it get to the point where you suffer. Far from it. You have been a good host, and you seem to be handling this matter well.
I am not smiling any more because this has caused you discomfort and bother that you don't deserve. I'll take steps to put an end to your part in this matter. I will try to find another server; I think my nephew will let me use his. I hope you can rest easy after all this.
George Garrigues
(Dec. 6, 9:51 a.m.)
|
|
Complaint filed with the service provider
(To the editor)
That sounds like a good idea. On Thursday he complained to my service provider, which is Alabanza. So far I haven't heard anything from them, but eventually they will ask me to do something about it.
So if you move it soon, I'll transfer the credit from this domain to your other Web site . . . .
The Web site host
(Dec. 8, 11:28 a.m.)
|
|
|
|
|
|