the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

[Cla68]

So, Demiurge was "mentoring" this kid?

[Vigilant]

Oh dear, Ira. That's cutting pretty close to the line and fairly bad advice.

Arbitrary section break: Perspective needed

It is time to regain a sense of perspective here. I'm an attorney myself, but the legal angle is often not the best starting point for framing a wiki discussion, and it certainly isn't here. If we are doing legal thought-experiments, the chances that the free nature of the Wiki(p/m)edia project(s) is going to be impaired by minors withdrawing their consent to licensing, are about the same as that odds the free-content English Wikipedia is going to collapse when editors or their heirs start to become entitled to assert their termination interests under the Copyright Act beginning in 2036.

To the extent a minor, or for that matter any other, editor wants to withdraw an isolated image from Commons or En-WP or any other project, or perhaps a short article that no one has touched, and the content is not irreplaceable without undue effort, we should accommodate the request as a courtesy. Of course, to the extent the contribution is textual and it has become embedded in an article, we need not accommodate a belated request to remove it. Relevant factors in evaluating any such request include the good faith of the request, the effect that allowing it would have on the content, and any other surrounding circumstances. I would consider reevaluating my views on this topic if it were shown that these requests are beseiging the projects and actually causing disruption, but no one has claimed that is the case.

Short of service of a formal DMCA notice, legal considerations such as capacity to contract will rarely, if ever, play a dominant role in this analysis. Indeed, although Geoff and Philippe have made good points, the entire legal discussion is fictive: Just because a court would not enforce a 17-year-old's contract to buy a house, does not mean it would not enforce his or her "contract" to allow some sentences to be included in an online encyclopedia.

The edge case, in which a 17-year-old writes The Great American Novel and naively uploads it to Wikisource before his agent finds out about it, is left as an exercise for the reader.

Whether Arctic Kangaroo should be allowed to continue editing and on what terms is a separate matter on which I make no comment here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you studied copyright law?

Mr. Matetsky is a partner in the Commercial Litigation, Cooperative and Condominium Law and Employment and Labor Law Practice Groups at Ganfer & Shore.

His 25 years of practice includes extensive experience in representing private and public companies, other entities, and individuals in complex disputes including commercial, contract, securities, employment, and real estate related matters.

Hmmmmm.....

Mr. Matetsky has also been the primary author since 2005 of Ganfer & Shore’s monthly Client Advisory newsletter, keeping clients and friends of the firm up to date on selected developments in New York cooperative, condominium, and real estate law. He also serves as editor of the firm’s monthly Client Employment Law Advisory and periodic Client Corporate Law Advisory.

You should probably stop advising people when you get past the HOA stuff.

P.S. Saying "fictive" just makes you sound like a self absorbed twat.

[dogbiscuit]

Oh dear, Ira. That's cutting pretty close to the line and fairly bad advice.

Arbitrary section break: Perspective needed

It is time to regain a sense of perspective here. I'm an attorney myself, but the legal angle is often not the best starting point for framing a wiki discussion, and it certainly isn't here. If we are doing legal thought-experiments, the chances that the free nature of the Wiki(p/m)edia project(s) is going to be impaired by minors withdrawing their consent to licensing, are about the same as that odds the free-content English Wikipedia is going to collapse when editors or their heirs start to become entitled to assert their termination interests under the Copyright Act beginning in 2036.

To the extent a minor, or for that matter any other, editor wants to withdraw an isolated image from Commons or En-WP or any other project, or perhaps a short article that no one has touched, and the content is not irreplaceable without undue effort, we should accommodate the request as a courtesy. Of course, to the extent the contribution is textual and it has become embedded in an article, we need not accommodate a belated request to remove it. Relevant factors in evaluating any such request include the good faith of the request, the effect that allowing it would have on the content, and any other surrounding circumstances. I would consider reevaluating my views on this topic if it were shown that these requests are beseiging the projects and actually causing disruption, but no one has claimed that is the case.

Short of service of a formal DMCA notice, legal considerations such as capacity to contract will rarely, if ever, play a dominant role in this analysis. Indeed, although Geoff and Philippe have made good points, the entire legal discussion is fictive: Just because a court would not enforce a 17-year-old's contract to buy a house, does not mean it would not enforce his or her "contract" to allow some sentences to be included in an online encyclopedia.

The edge case, in which a 17-year-old writes The Great American Novel and naively uploads it to Wikisource before his agent finds out about it, is left as an exercise for the reader.

Whether Arctic Kangaroo should be allowed to continue editing and on what terms is a separate matter on which I make no comment here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you studied copyright law?

Mr. Matetsky is a partner in the Commercial Litigation, Cooperative and Condominium Law and Employment and Labor Law Practice Groups at Ganfer & Shore.

His 25 years of practice includes extensive experience in representing private and public companies, other entities, and individuals in complex disputes including commercial, contract, securities, employment, and real estate related matters.

Hmmmmm.....

Mr. Matetsky has also been the primary author since 2005 of Ganfer & Shore’s monthly Client Advisory newsletter, keeping clients and friends of the firm up to date on selected developments in New York cooperative, condominium, and real estate law. He also serves as editor of the firm’s monthly Client Employment Law Advisory and periodic Client Corporate Law Advisory.

You should probably stop advising people when you get past the HOA stuff.

P.S. Saying "fictive" just makes you sound like a self absorbed twat.

That highlighted sentence does seem a little wobbly on the legal front. It is often said that the courts are the final arbiter, but in this case the fundamental issue is that can a minor make an enforceable contract, and that is not a question that should blow in the wind of a particular case. Simple case, our daughter got a web site account when she was about 16 and didn't realise that there was some fee payable with it. We rang up, apologised for our daughter entering into a contract inappropriately and politely asked that the account be closed and the money wiped off the account. It took all of 30 seconds to sort that one out, so it is hardly news that contracts cannot be enforced against minors.

I would suggest that all those sites that offer the "I am over 16" check boxes are wasting their time when it comes to defending themselves against charges of allowing minors onto their site. I am sure that the courts, while allowing some mitigation for the dishonesty of children, would hold that it is exactly the point that minors are not expected to be trustworthy and knowledgeable is why they are treated differently in law.

Wikipedia are in a worse position because they know damn well they have minors on the site, they encourage them on the site and they do absolutely nothing to protect themselves or the minors from issues that might arise. I can't help but feel that one day there will be a parental class action suit in which Ironholds' pronouncements and Russavia's pr0n curation will be top of the list of evidence, together with Sue Gardner's "not having a problem with it" approach.

[Ming]

Ming suspects that NYB's sense-of-proportion on this is working properly and that a court might force a takedown of a images but would probably not force the kind of reversion needed to take out edits to an article put in three years back and heavily updated since then. There's also the perspective that editing is volunteer labor and that nobody is going to take seriously the notion that teenagers have to get their parents' formal legal permission to work for free, or for that matter that a parent can force a building to be demolished because their kid wasn't authorized to wield a hammer in its construction.

[lilburne]

Lilburne suspects that between 5-10% of text edits to wikipedia articles are copyrightable, being as it is mostly close paraphrasing of other sources. Lilburne further suspects that after 3 years that amount of copyrightable edits that remain on articles is less than 1% because others have edited out the copyrightable material by a sequence of word substitutions and grammar changes. Or to put it another way the majority of article text on wikipedia is not copyright to any particular author, and as the WMF eschews all responsibility for it, there is no one with standing to make a copyright claim.

[Woden.Ragnarok]

So, Demiurge was "mentoring" this kid?

As I read it, Demiurge offered to mentor AK during this incident. AK had already been mentored by one of Demiurge's existing minors - not sure if it was RCSprinter or another minor previously mentored by RCSsprinter but the fact I can't tell shows the problem. Minors mentoring Minors who are mentoring minors and Demiurge befriending them all.

[lilburne]

As I read it, Demiurge offered to mentor AK during this incident. AK had already been mentored by one of Demiurge's existing minors - not sure if it was RCSprinter or another minor previously mentored by RCSsprinter but the fact I can't tell shows the problem. Minors mentoring Minors who are mentoring minors and Demiurge befriending them all.

We should give Demijohn a wikipedian of the year award.

[Woden.Ragnarok]

As I read it, Demiurge offered to mentor AK during this incident. AK had already been mentored by one of Demiurge's existing minors - not sure if it was RCSprinter or another minor previously mentored by RCSsprinter but the fact I can't tell shows the problem. Minors mentoring Minors who are mentoring minors and Demiurge befriending them all.

We should give Demijohn a wikipedian of the year award.

I nominated one of his minions^H^H^H^Hors for it on the basis of his terrible^H^H^H^Hific public transport articles...

[lilburne]

Who is this Nil Einne (T-C-L)?

if he had gone done the DMCA route, there is no guarantee he ever would have been able to in the future particularly if he was unwillng to withdraw the DMCA request. The fact that he images were deleted is further evidence of the fallacy of this route, he could easily have compromised the possibilty of him ever contributing here again,
...
he could easily have compromised the possibilty of him ever contributing here again,
...
using legl threats and fear and the knowledge the WMF is unlikely to want to fight such a case (and ironically no one even suggested he should get appropriate advice before submitting a request which may have legal implications for him).

• There is no way that the fuckers on WP can stop anyone from editing the articles there.
• He went the community route and was told by mattbuck and the other parasites at Commons to piss off.
• A DMCA takedown is not a legal threat it is a claim of copyright infringement. The receiving website either removes the content, pending a copyright claim challenge, or risks being enjoined in any subsequent court action.
• There is no legal implications in a genuine copyright holder making a good faith DMCA takedown request.

NOTE: Were I to find an image,on Commons, that I hadn't put there I'd just send the DMCA takedown. I wouldn't be pissing about with a bunch of Commons fuckwads.

[Cedric]

Oh dear, Ira. That's cutting pretty close to the line and fairly bad advice.

[bloviations omitted]

Have you studied copyright law?

As the information provided about Matetsky's practice indicates he is a real estate lawyer, the answer is probably "no." In fact, most lawyers haven't. Copyright, patent and trademark is a specialized area of legal practice. Such a practice is very expensive, and the fees are correspondingly huge. Still, he could have and should have expressed himself better here.

P.S. Saying "fictive" just makes you sound like a self absorbed twat.

Perhaps. Or perhaps his lawyer hat fits him so tightly he has difficulty removing it (not that many at Wikipedia would notice that ).

[Vigilant]

Who is this Nil Einne (T-C-L)?

Tet Yoon Lee, Malaysian living in New Zealand.

Twitter

Facebook
Lots of ZOO groups he belongs to. FT2 white courtesy telephone.

Kickstarter

eMule user/Filestealer

Typepad/wannabe programmer

Deep political thinker

So lonely

Some IP minor editing on his employer's page that corresponds to his location. Still, a very common no-no.

[inour]

May as well add this little item http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/all ... -1.1420566 nothing to do with AK exactly, but talking about "consideration"-and how it applies. So the link is about some volunteers for a Major League Baseball event who were given prizes and free tickets, (but no pay). AK caused damage to WP for trying to win a contest where the "prize/consideration??"--was some super-special barnstars. Seeing how avatars/graphic art goes for $$ on say for instance Zynga-games, Second City type sites, I don't know if barnstars could be considered "consideration"-----but this case against MLB-(if it even goes to court and it probably will be settled before that), is interesting for any and all volunteers.
I'm also curious about info. posted here that says that AK, as a minor, has up 'till any time before turning 18 to assert his rights as a minor? Well for one thing I think that AK is in Singapore, (US laws?)..and I do not know anything, but the way that I always understood it, and maybe different for contract and ©, but I actually do know a middle-aged person who just cashed-in for millions on a case involving Catholic Priests molesting when they were younger. ........the way that I thought is that someone who had something occur, (something that could be litigated)--when they are a minor, supposedly had two years from either the time that they reached the age of majority, (18), OR, two years AFTER they realize or remember that they were harmed.
Like, the clock starts ticking, in the molestation victims, from the point in time that they realize that they had legal right to sue? I really do not know, but I never heard it explained like it was here where a minor had to claim rights before they became 18.

[lilburne]

Like, the clock starts ticking, in the molestation victims, from the point in time that they realize that they had legal right to sue? I really do not know, but I never heard it explained like it was here where a minor had to claim rights before they became 18.

They don't have to repudiate the contract before they are 18 they can do so afterwards, but not long afterwards. There doesn't seem to be any indication as to what 'not long afterwards' means. Depends on circumstances etc.

I mentioned the AK situation to a copyright lawyer who responded 'Generally, a minor can disavow a contract, with some exceptions'
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

It might be interesting to get Devlin Hartline take on it.

[dogbiscuit]

Like, the clock starts ticking, in the molestation victims, from the point in time that they realize that they had legal right to sue? I really do not know, but I never heard it explained like it was here where a minor had to claim rights before they became 18.

They don't have to repudiate the contract before they are 18 they can do so afterwards, but not long afterwards. There doesn't seem to be any indication as to what 'not long afterwards' means. Depends on circumstances etc.

I mentioned the AK situation to a copyright lawyer who responded 'Generally, a minor can disavow a contract, with some exceptions'
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

It might be interesting to get Devlin Hartline take on it.

Every case on its own merits. I'd suggest that what would influence it would be things like whether it was something that was a continuing involvement after 18, what brought the issue to a head and so on.

If you gave a picture away at the age of 12 and thought nothing of it for 15 years and then discovered your picture was being used in a soft porn magazine, you might well be able to make a valid claim to revoke the rights, whereas if, as a Wikipedian you continued editing past your 18th birthday you would cement that you continued similar actions as an adult and it could be presumed that you were knowingly allowing your past actions to stand.

[Woden.Ragnarok]

As I read it, Demiurge offered to mentor AK during this incident. AK had already been mentored by one of Demiurge's existing minors - not sure if it was RCSprinter or another minor previously mentored by RCSsprinter but the fact I can't tell shows the problem. Minors mentoring Minors who are mentoring minors and Demiurge befriending them all.

Just checked and it was RCSprinter that mentored AK originally. Given the trouble he's been in since then, due to his young age it's a clear warning that he shouldn't be mentoring until he is older.

Talking of RC, going through talkpage archives I found the following https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =545984049 where demiwit tries to use formely minor editor now young admin m.o.p to sanction a whole load of editors for some slight against RC rather than take them to a public forum. Anyone know if there's a bigger connection between Demijohn and m.o.p?

[thekohser]

...the link is about some volunteers for a Major League Baseball event who were given prizes and free tickets, (but no pay). AK caused damage to WP for trying to win a contest where the "prize/consideration??"--was some super-special barnstars. Seeing how avatars/graphic art goes for $$ on say for instance Zynga-games, Second City type sites, I don't know if barnstars could be considered "consideration"...

Not an apt comparison, because you or I could award ourselves as many barnstars as we'd like, for free, at no cost to ourselves or to others, and it is unlikely that we could ever sell a barnstar to anyone. If we print ourselves tickets to a baseball game, while we could attempt to use or sell those tickets, it would be a criminal act.

Then again, you have some real bone-heads who respond to Reward Board proposals where the compensation offered is a barnstar, even when other proposals are offering cash. So, maybe you're on to something there.

[lilburne]

Then again, you have some real bone-heads who respond to Reward Board proposals where the compensation offered is a barnstar, even when other proposals are offering cash. So, maybe you're on to something there.

So I have this barnstar here. Can I donate it to Demijohn or Prioryman?

[lilburne]

It might be interesting to get Devlin Hartline take on it.

Indeed Devlin thinks its an interesting issue indeed. Initial response here:
http://www.copyhype.com/2013/07/fourth- ... -transfer/

[Ming]

Interesting development over at FFD: A user gets a whole series of Star Trek screen caps G7 deleted, just by asking. Ming wonders whether this would have worked if they weren't already being considered for deletion.

[enwikibadscience]

They're fucked.
There's no good answer here.

If a case like this makes it into a court, they will lose.
The CC license is like the GPL in that the use of the content protected by the license is wrapped in a contract.

Minor's cannot be held to contracts in the US.

Either the WMF can start requiring people to prove age of majority or they can sit atop this nuclear warhead until someone pushes that little red button.


I've got an inkling to get a minor I know to post a bunch of stuff to a WMF site, wait six months and then file a DMCA takedown backed by their legal guardians.

Has anyone discussed this problem on en.Wikipedia? One can deal with issues created as a minor for ages after the fact in some states, ten years in Hawaii maybe.

[enwikibadscience]

As I read it, Demiurge offered to mentor AK during this incident. AK had already been mentored by one of Demiurge's existing minors - not sure if it was RCSprinter or another minor previously mentored by RCSsprinter but the fact I can't tell shows the problem. Minors mentoring Minors who are mentoring minors and Demiurge befriending them all.

We should give Demijohn a wikipedian of the year award.

Ew! Isn't Demiurge the one who always seems drunk? This is bad.

[Kelly Martin]

The point here is that regardless as to what a minor agrees to, even if one signs an agreement, they can repudiate it before they reach the age of 18.

They can no more repudiate an agreement than enter into a binding one. The agreement is probably null and void ab initio, and presumably can be repudiated by the child's parent or guardian. If the parent becomes aware of the agreement and does not repudiate it, maybe a case can be made that he/she has agreed to it, but that's a bit flimsy.

As I recall, in the US a contract with a minor (other than one for necessities) is voidable, but not void ab initio. The minor (via a guardian or next friend) can insist on the enforcement of the contract, but the other party cannot. A minor may repudiate a contract even well after becoming an adult (what matters is that the party was incompetent at the time the contract was formed), although a long delay in repudiation might offer an equitable remedy in laches for the other party. The contract is not automatically ratified by the mere act of the minor becoming an adult.

[Jim]

The point here is that regardless as to what a minor agrees to, even if one signs an agreement, they can repudiate it before they reach the age of 18.

They can no more repudiate an agreement than enter into a binding one. The agreement is probably null and void ab initio, and presumably can be repudiated by the child's parent or guardian. If the parent becomes aware of the agreement and does not repudiate it, maybe a case can be made that he/she has agreed to it, but that's a bit flimsy.

As I recall, in the US a contract with a minor (other than one for necessities) is voidable, but not void ab initio. The minor can insist on the enforcement of the contract, but the other party cannot.

That would make perfect sense. It puts the onus in exactly the right place.

[enwikibadscience]

The point here is that regardless as to what a minor agrees to, even if one signs an agreement, they can repudiate it before they reach the age of 18.

They can no more repudiate an agreement than enter into a binding one. The agreement is probably null and void ab initio, and presumably can be repudiated by the child's parent or guardian. If the parent becomes aware of the agreement and does not repudiate it, maybe a case can be made that he/she has agreed to it, but that's a bit flimsy.

As I recall, in the US a contract with a minor (other than one for necessities) is voidable, but not void ab initio. The minor can insist on the enforcement of the contract, but the other party cannot.

That would make perfect sense. It puts the onus in exactly the right place.

I think, except under certain circumstances, it is indeed void and void ab initio. If a minor cannot enter into a contract, one entered into must, by law, be void ab initio. A minor selling her artwork, who gets the money, can benefit and enter a contract, though.

[Kelly Martin]

If a minor cannot enter into a contract, one entered into must, by law, be void ab initio. A minor selling her artwork, who gets the money, can benefit and enter a contract, though.

It doesn't quite work that way, even if you think it should. Trust me, I studied this in law school. There are many resources on the Intarwebs that will explain the difference between a void contract and a voidable contract. Fewer will discuss the equitable remedies that a court has to mitigate the hard-line rules of the common law. For example, in many cases where a contract is technically voidable, quantum meruit will still result in the minor (or minor's guardian) being liable to the other party for the fair market value of the (partial) performance of the nonenforceable contract.

No competent gallery, exhibitor, or trader will buy artwork from a minor without parental consent. The purchaser would not have clear title to either the physical work or to the underlying copyright. US law requires that a transfer of copyright be evidenced by a written instrument, which would have to be signed by the minor's legal guardian because a minor cannot own property in his or own right. Any such sale not executed by the minor's guardian would be rescindable, subject only to a laches defense.

[Jim]

If a minor cannot enter into a contract, one entered into must, by law, be void ab initio. A minor selling her artwork, who gets the money, can benefit and enter a contract, though.

It doesn't quite work that way, even if you think it should. Trust me, I studied this in law school. There are many resources on the Intarwebs that will explain the difference between a void contract and a voidable contract. Fewer will discuss the equitable remedies that a court has to mitigate the hard-line rules of the common law. For example, in many cases where a contract is technically voidable, quantum meruit will still result in the minor (or minor's guardian) being liable to the other party for the fair market value of the (partial) performance of the nonenforceable contract.

No competent gallery, exhibitor, or trader will buy artwork from a minor without parental consent. The purchaser would not have clear title to either the physical work or to the underlying copyright. US law requires that a transfer of copyright be evidenced by a written instrument, which would have to be signed by the minor's legal guardian because a minor cannot own property in his or own right. Any such sale not executed by the minor's guardian would be rescindable, subject only to a laches defense.

At the risk of repeating myself: That would make perfect sense. It puts the onus in exactly the right place.
If it doesn't work like that, it should. I'm glad it seems to.

[Kumioko]

Ill be honest, my 13 year old son and both my daughters (17 and 19) have all edited at least a dozen times each. Different articles, different interests and all were minors when they started. My sons first edit was when he was about 10 and he has an actual user account and something like 250 edits to his credit. In fact he is very active on Wikia and is the one that told me I should edit there and "kick Wikipedia to the curb". On Wikia he is an admin in at least one project, at 13 (just found that out last weekend). Now I generally don't talk much about my family on here or Wikipedia but before someone rails on my for my son being an admin/editor on Wiki's I want to clarify that he is literally a genius, is consultant for online video games, has a YouTube channel and has 2 patents so far....at 13! As he puts it, he is 10.257 times smarter than the average bear. So he to me, is an extreme exception to the rule and not the norm so I haven't told him to stop editing. In fact he has already told me that at some point they are going to change to require proof of age, so he expects it.

Now having said that, I am positive he isn't the only one either at Wikia or on Wikipedia/associated projects with a user account or even admin rights being under 18. I would wager that if the WMF actually started to verify identities a shocking number would be minors including the admins.

[enwikibadscience]

If a minor cannot enter into a contract, one entered into must, by law, be void ab initio. A minor selling her artwork, who gets the money, can benefit and enter a contract, though.

It doesn't quite work that way, even if you think it should. Trust me, I studied this in law school. There are many resources on the Intarwebs that will explain the difference between a void contract and a voidable contract. Fewer will discuss the equitable remedies that a court has to mitigate the hard-line rules of the common law. For example, in many cases where a contract is technically voidable, quantum meruit will still result in the minor (or minor's guardian) being liable to the other party for the fair market value of the (partial) performance of the nonenforceable contract.

No competent gallery, exhibitor, or trader will buy artwork from a minor without parental consent. The purchaser would not have clear title to either the physical work or to the underlying copyright. US law requires that a transfer of copyright be evidenced by a written instrument, which would have to be signed by the minor's legal guardian because a minor cannot own property in his or own right. Any such sale not executed by the minor's guardian would be rescindable, subject only to a laches defense.

Oh, I trust you know more than I do, as I am not a lawyer. I did sell artwork as a minor, though, to a museum. We had to get the contract okayed by a Superior Court judge. There was a big deal about the contract, that I personally benefited and got the money was the important part that made it a legal contract with me as a minir, not my parents. The moneys did go into a trust, and my parents paid all the trust fees, and maybe for my attorney.

[Poetlister]

I did sell artwork as a minor, though, to a museum. We had to get the contract okayed by a Superior Court judge. There was a big deal about the contract, that I personally benefited and got the money was the important part that made it a legal contract with me as a minir, not my parents. The moneys did go into a trust, and my parents paid all the trust fees, and maybe for my attorney.

That's amazing. Did you really get more money for your art than all the legal fees that must have been paid?

[Kelly Martin]

Oh, I trust you know more than I do, as I am not a lawyer. I did sell artwork as a minor, though, to a museum. We had to get the contract okayed by a Superior Court judge. There was a big deal about the contract, that I personally benefited and got the money was the important part that made it a legal contract with me as a minir, not my parents. The moneys did go into a trust, and my parents paid all the trust fees, and maybe for my attorney.

As a semi-aside, it should be noted that Urban Outfitters (and possibly others) are stealing works, often by minors, that have been uploaded to DeviantArt, Tumblr, and other websites and using them for promotional purposes and even as T-shirt designs without credit or compensation to the artists. This is virtually certain to eventually result in litigation, and in the case where a design by a minor has been misappropriated, the parents have the additional defense of incapacity, not to mention the ability to present Urban Outfitters as "exploiting defenseless children". Some lawyer is going to make a big name for herself (and collect a big statutory fee award) by winning a case like this in the near future....

[EricBarbour]

I would wager that if the WMF actually started to verify identities a shocking number would be minors including the admins.

You have no idea......

[Kumioko]

Thats one of the many reasons why I strongly disagree with Wikipedia's elevation of Admins to deity status on the site and one reason why the community and WMF's argument that its a "position of trust" is so absurd. If it was then they would verify their identity, they wouldn't let accounts stay dormant for a year before removing the tools and they certainly would not allow admins to be virtually exempt from policy.

[Hex]

Wikipedia's elevation of Admins to deity status

It's true. When I joined Wikipedia at the beginning, I looked like this.



But since becoming an admin, now I look like this.



Thanks, Wikipedia!

[enwikibadscience]

Oh dear, Ira. ....


P.S. Saying "fictive" just makes you sound like a self absorbed twat.

Well, if the shoe fits...

[enwikibadscience]

Oh, I trust you know more than I do, as I am not a lawyer. I did sell artwork as a minor, though, to a museum. We had to get the contract okayed by a Superior Court judge. There was a big deal about the contract, that I personally benefited and got the money was the important part that made it a legal contract with me as a minir, not my parents. The moneys did go into a trust, and my parents paid all the trust fees, and maybe for my attorney.

As a semi-aside, it should be noted that Urban Outfitters (and possibly others) are stealing works, often by minors, that have been uploaded to DeviantArt, Tumblr, and other websites and using them for promotional purposes and even as T-shirt designs without credit or compensation to the artists. This is virtually certain to eventually result in litigation, and in the case where a design by a minor has been misappropriated, the parents have the additional defense of incapacity, not to mention the ability to present Urban Outfitters as "exploiting defenseless children". Some lawyer is going to make a big name for herself (and collect a big statutory fee award) by winning a case like this in the near future....

Lol. I hope so.

[enwikibadscience]

I did sell artwork as a minor, though, to a museum. We had to get the contract okayed by a Superior Court judge. There was a big deal about the contract, that I personally benefited and got the money was the important part that made it a legal contract with me as a minir, not my parents. The moneys did go into a trust, and my parents paid all the trust fees, and maybe for my attorney.

That's amazing. Did you really get more money for your art than all the legal fees that must have been paid?

I don't know how much the legl fees were, but I think my parents paid them, and they did pay the fees associate with my trust, maybe just the initial set-up. I got every penny of the offer price for my pieces, and I can't imagine the legal fees for a contract negotiation, even one that had to be approved in court, were all that much, plus the trust invested well, so I wound up with even more money at 18.



But, back to en.Wikipedia. Tested, I think they will wind up with problems with minors editing.

[Peryglus]

Yes, and AK, who has been very active at Commons since his enwiki block, has even asked for his adoption to be deleted.

Do doubt some admin will find some way of accusing him of gaming the system or whatever. Would've been easier to email.

[Poetlister]

But since becoming an admin, now I look like this.



Thanks, Wikipedia!

You mean - you're Eric Barber?

[thekohser]

On Wikia he is an admin in at least one project, at 13 (just found that out last weekend).

Just imagine, he was only 7 years old when the Spanking Art Wikia site was going strong -- he could have been a featured guest image subject!

[greyed.out.fields]

But since becoming an admin, now I look like this.



Thanks, Wikipedia!

You mean - you're Eric Barber?

Eric Bana! (na)