Hi everyone,
per decision of the Tax office of the Canton of Zurich, Wikimedia CH
has been recognised as charitable association and thus exempt from
municipal, cantonal and federal (i.e. all) taxes.
According to Swiss law, this means that donations to us are now tax
deductible in whole Switzerland.
Regards
Michael
Wikimedia CH secretary
Hello,
Following a deletion debate on Commons [1], we are left with the
problem whether or not Public domain images that are under other
restrictions, such as coats of arms, are allowed under the Foundation
Licensing policy. If I quote Erik Moeller, from another thread [2] on
the mailing list:
'[...]the licensing policy has been specifically formulated to avoid
that problem. It requires content to be under a Free Content License,
which is defined as "a license which meets the terms of the Definition
of Free Cultural Works _specific to licenses_".[...]'
However, since we are talking about public domain, this does not apply
for this image, since public domain is not a license. This means that
another section of the resolution applies:
'[...] or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of
Free Cultural Works' as referenced above.'
Which is not the case, this specific image is under more restrictions;
see the deletion debate for details. Is this analysis correct? Or
should we just treat public domain as a "free content license"?
Bryan
(cc'd to commons-l)
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SilaTonga.svg
[2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-April/029468.html
Anthony a écrit :
> On 5/20/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Anthony wrote:
>>> On 5/19/07, Yann Forget <yann(a)forget-me.net> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Anthony a écrit :
>>>> (...)
>>>>> But I think the main issue has nothing to do with the IRS. It's a
>>>>> matter of focus. Developing a profitable business competes with the
>>>>> maximum production and distribution of content. Charging maximum
>>>>> prices for data feeds reduces the dissemination of the data. Charging
>>>>> licensing fees to DVD distributors raises the prices of the DVDs and
>>>>> thus reduces the number of DVDs which are distributed. Etc, etc (*).
>>>> I think this is false, because we deal with digital and free content.
>>>>
>>>> It is not because you sell a datafeed to one organisation at one prize
>>>> that you sell it to everybody at the same price. Same logic for DVDs.
>>>>
>>> Interesting. I don't think that would be feasible for datafeeds
>>> though, and I'm pretty sure it isn't feasible for DVDs. In the case
>>> of DVDs, if you tried to sell them to different groups for different
>>> prices, you'd simply see people resell the DVDs (engage in arbitrage).
>> Reselling one or two DVD would not be a big deal.
>> However, engaging into a real reselling activity of a DVD using
>> trademarks which you are not authorized to use for a commercial
>> activity, is illegal.
>>
> Umm, how so? Check out eBay sometime, or half.com (have they gotten
> rid of that yet?). People resell DVDs using trademarks which they
> aren't authorized to use for a commercial activity *all the time*.
> Besides that, it's most certainly not illegal.
>
>>> I think this would happen for datafeeds as well, if they were ever
>>> accessible to the regular public. If I as an individual could buy an
>>> en.wikipedia datafeed for $100/month (which would probably be more
>>> than enough to cover WMF's actual costs), the WMF wouldn't be able to
>>> charge companies $5000/month, because if they did I'd just step in and
>>> resell my $100/month datafeed for much less than $5000.
>> Yeah, and since your contract agreement at $100 explicitely does not
>> allow you to resell the feed to a third party, you would engage into
>> illegal activity as well.
>>
> Then you could sue me, and I'd countersue you for violating the GFDL.
> What part of "add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this
> License" don't you understand?
>
> If you're currently forcing datafeed recipients to agree not to
> redistribute the data they receive, then you're in major breach of the
> GFDL. Not just the relatively minor breaches that have been going on
> for so long, but you've subverting the very essence of copyleft.
>
> I seriously hope your current contracts don't do that.
>
>>> And I think the WMF *should* be willing to sell unrestricted datafeeds
>>> to *anyone* for little more than its actual costs. This is in line
>>> with maximizing the useful distribution of free content, which is
>>> after all the purpose of the WMF.
>> Datafeed is one of the way we can make money. Which will allow us to pay
>> the accountant.
>> Which will allow us to provide all the financial information you are
>> noisily requesting.
>
> The millions of dollars in donations you've collected is another way
> to pay an accountant.
>
To be constructive, do you have some ideas to collect more money ? What
should be change during the next fundraising ?
- Should we develop some banners
(http://www2.redcross.org/psa/bannerorder/all/) and ask bloggers and
site owners to add donation ads to websites ?
- Should we do like Firefox (http://www.firefoxgotyourback.com/), but
ask people to pay to "be a pixel" ;)
>> If you count in "actual cost" uniquely the bandwidth cost, $100 could
>> make it. But running an organization uniquely counting as cost, the
>> bandwidth, is seriously being out of it.
>>
> The organization is going to be run regardless of whether or not the
> datafeed is given. Counting all the costs of running the organization
> when calculating the marginal cost of providing a datafeed, is
> seriously being out of it.
>
> Anthony
>
Pierre
--
Pierre Beaudouin
Président de Wikimédia France
http://www.wikimedia.fr
Dear list,
this is to inform you, that Anthony <wikilegal at inbox dot org> has
been put on moderation due to aggressive posting, ad personam attacks
and flamewars. He has been warned privately and unfortunately, he
continued to post unacceptable emails after this warning. I am aware
that moderation is quite a final remedy (one step before blocking
completely from the list) but I think it is justified here.
I hope that this will help to "pacify" the list. Comments are welcome
but off-list please.
Thank you
Michael
First, an announcement, then some thoughts
We just hired Vishal Pattel as part-time business developer.
The positions responsabilities are:
1) Identify and develop market strategies
2) Generate ideas and initiatives that capitalize on existing and
prospective partner strengths
3) Consistently build a pipeline of new, revenue generating opportunities
4) Prepare written presentations, reports, and term sheets
5) Assist in contract negotiations
6) Assist with other tasks as needed(*)
(*) to be added to any staff member job description by default :-)
Vishal is already in the office, since he has been a part time intern
since january 2007. We had expected to fill in this position in the
future - not considered as urgent as the ED or legal coordinator
positions - but it became more urgent after Danny's departure.
I expect Vishal will both relieve other staff members from certain
tasks, and focus all his attention on an area which was not always
treated as a major area.
Immediate and very specific tasks he will be in charge, amongst other
tasks related to the position, are :
* report on all business deals we currently are in (who, what, when, how
much).
* analyze the price asked for certain services and implement an increase
if suitable
* coordinate sponsorship for Wikimania
* follow up on brand marketing proposal
* be the general contact person for all the various (and sometimes
really amazing) business deals proposed to the Foundation
--------
Business... is not a simple matter.
I realized recently that the message we were consistently giving to the
press was that we basically got all of our revenue from donations.
But...first of all, are we sure it is true ?
Do you know how much of our revenue comes from donations, how much comes
from grants, how much comes from services, how much come from cafepress,
how much come from pure brand business ?
I know the figures from last year, though financial statements did not
make the difference between services and brand marketing for example.
The values were very low anyway. I have some estimates of some values
for the current year. But I do not have clear precise data month by
month. And I know the data is changing very rapidly. I do not think it
is something like 99% donations, 1% the rest of the revenue.
-------
Second, regardless of how much we get from various sources, it make
sense to know which message we want to get out. Do we want our public to
hear only (or mostly) that we manage thanks to their donations ? Or do
we also want potential business partners to hear that they can also make
business with us ?
If we want the second, we must not only have a proper frame to do
business (such as a nicely working cafe press, or a good wap service),
but also make it known that we want to do so. As with an information kit
different from the press kit.
-------
Third, it makes sense to exactly know which type of business we want (or
we can) to get into.
In terms in revenue, aside from the regular donations and grants, here
is what we can get right now
* income from sales from cafe press. This revenue is partly business,
partly promotion. We do not run the cafepress exclusively to earn money,
but also because it is pretty cool to have a wikimedia mug or a
wikipedia tee-shirt.
* data services: afaik, currently, datafeed for website and a wap
service (extremely basic...). Arguably, this is pure business, or a mix
of business/distribution
* brand with content distribution deal: we do not want to directly
distribute offline versions of our content, and even less to make people
pay for that. Legally risky. But we are happy others are doing, and when
they run a business on this, we make a deal for brand use. Example,
production of a DVD with Wikipedia content on it; in such case, we
collect a small fee corresponding to the use of the logo on the DVD
jacket. In such case, it is not only a business deal. It is business,
but it is also part of our mission as it allows content to further
disseminate.
* pure brand deals: very few were done till now; That might be typically
the Cisco deal, where a video used our logo and some money was
collected. At a much larger scale, we could envision larger impact, with
toys, computer equipment, etc... this is just to get money.
* I mention advertisement. It is pure business. We do not do it, but it
is mentionned regularly, and I think that for the sake of it, we should
consider one day having a study done to see how much it would bring in,
and how much negative impact it would have (not only on community mood,
but also probably in donations decrease).
* on-site services, to improve the user experience. We might imagine a
system of print-on-demand on the website itself, with a fee per
printed/shipped book. Right now, there are few, if not no services of
this type.
* arguably, I will mention here sponsorship. Because sponsorship is
largely an exchange of money with promotion of a third party.
I expect there are other ways to make business and to collect some cash.
Which ones would you suggest ?
Each of these systems has advantage and drawbacks. I above mentionned
the advertisement system, but there are others which might be
controversial. For example, if we have wikipedia logo printed on a game
of trivial pursuit, will you be happy, or not ? If Microsoft is
Wikimania sponsor, will you be happy, or not ?
Community can very largely provide input here.
-------
fourth, legal frame.
Are they deals we can not make practically or reasonably ? Or deals we
simply should not go into ? Or deals we should not get into above a
certain figure of income for tax reasons ?
If we sell the right to use the brand, can we defend it is a brand and
it is ours at the place where we want to make the deal ? (ie, were the
tms secured ? )
All questions difficult right now with no legal counsel though.
-------
Fifth, much mentionned in the past few days. Brand precisely. Public
perception of a brand. Whether to unify our brand or not. Whether to try
to go toward a more unified appearance accross all websites, or not.
Of course, we can get counselling from professionals on this, but
community input will be unvaluable.
-------
The revenue we right now get from business is largely inferior to what
we could get, and I expect it will grow much larger in the coming year.
But before it really become so, we have significant challenges in front
of us. I hope that Vishal will become an important piece of that
challenge and invite him to involve the community to deal with all this.
Ant
On 5/20/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> You seriously do not understand the inner-workings of this organization. We
> do not have "millions of dollars" right now, we have enough to get by and
> probably some more, but we definitely do not have the large amount you are
> talking about.
I'm sorry if I implied that the WMF currently had "millions of
dollars". The fact is I have no idea how much the WMF currently has,
as it stopped regular disclosure of this information years ago and
hasn't yet resumed doing so.
It doesn't cost millions of dollars to hire an accountant, though.
> Please look up the prices of the servers alone and the
> maintenance that needs to be done on them. If you do not understand
> something, ask, don't incorrectly point a rude finger.
>
I've read the previous financial statements. In each case the revenue
collected exceeded the expenses.
Anthony
I'm drafting a Board resolution to clarify the existing resolutions
"Licensing policy" and "Access to nonpublic data", as follows:
* Paragraph 1 of Resolution:Licensing policy is clarified: The
licensing policy does not apply to any inalienable moral rights
associated with a work.
* Paragraph 4 of Resolution:Access to nonpublic data is clarified: The
access policies for OTRS e-mail queues or other communication systems
of the Wikimedia Foundation are defined by WMF office staff in
accordance with the intent of the resolution.
If you have any other suggestions for clarifications or corrections,
please make them ASAP.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
On 5/20/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> Thirded, but I think it is quite obvious from my responses to Anthony that I
> think he is a troll.
>
This is nothing personal against you but can we stop this right now?
If anyone else wants to talk to Anthony about whether he is a "troll"
or not, do it in private and *off-list*.
I have already said this in a post to the list once
(http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/030030.html)
and I repeat my statement: Accusing each other of trolling in public
only stimulates flame wars and is not
in any other way helpful to this list. The next unlucky person who
decides to entertain the list with ad personam comments about other
subscribers risks being moderated.
Thank you
Michael
> Cbrown1023
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Alison
> Wheeler
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 9:03 AM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [announcement] new staff member in business
> development
>
> On Sun, May 20, 2007 13:26, Robert Leverington wrote:
> > Please Anthony, stop being a troll. You are being completely ignorant and
> > rude.
>
> Seconded.
>
> > On 20/05/07, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> >> Leasing servers instead of purchasing
> >> them is one factor which should help a great deal.
>
> Leasing equipment is what you do when you need the option to be able to
> cancel it should trading conditions turn against you and you no longer
> need the equipment (which is not the case with WMF - we *know* that our
> usage will continue to increase not decrease) -or- you want to be able to
> mark down the lease / interest payments against your tax liability, again
> which does not apply to WMF.
>
> As Robert got to saying first, please be constructive and don't troll.
>
> Alison Wheeler
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
